Talking about socialism rationally

[Ericsson1228d]

why not look at your little top 10 list there, Willtom, and tell me what all of those countries have in common (except Switzerland and Ireland, but who benefit from what they all have in common) since April 1949...

care to take a guess what that is?

been going on for just over 6 decades...


give up?


of course you do.

three words...



UNITED

STATES

PROTECTION


all of those countries, belong to either NATO, have working relationships with NATO (Switz and Ire) or in Japan's case, the JAPAN-US Security treaty.

not one of those countries who belongs to NATO, or neutral Switzerland who benefit by being in the center surrounded by secure NATO countries, or neutral Ireland, who benefit by being next to the UK, have had to worry about spending high amounts of GDP on security, even though they spent close to 5 decades with the Warsaw Pact a couple days tank drive to the east.

both Switzerland and Ireland have cooperation ties with NATO as well

why?

The USA and its naughty unfettered capitalism, provided the engine of a military machine that kept the peace in europe and defended Japan.

so, those well functioning hybrid socialist democracies, had roughly 5 decades to perfect their utopian societies, which function rather well, definitely...but they were *ABLE* to do so, because someone else's dime was invested in making *SURE* that soviet tanks never wound up racing through those paradises eating all the croissants and chocolate they could get their hands on.

of all those countries on your little list, not one of them except for the UK devotes (based on 2005/2006 numbers) more than 2% of GDP to their military budgets. the world Average is 2%


UK 2.4%
Norway 1.9%
Sweden 1.5%
Denmark 1.3%
Switzerland 1.0%
Luxembourg .9 %
Ireland .9%
Japan .8%
Iceland (under .1%)




it is much easier to make your societies better, when you live free and safe, based securely behind the wall that someone else builds, maintains and defends, to keep the monsters out.

i am just curious, what you think may have happened to all those countries and Europe, had our armed forces not been stationed there for the next 6 decades plus...not to mention the money we could have saved on deployment if we had just returned all our forces to pre-war levels and brought all our troops home and not to mention the money they would have been forced to spend on their militaries instead of health care and other social programs which are so good in those countries.


oh yeah...and by the way...you may have heard of this nice little plan that the US organized Post WW2 (well you probably have not heard about it)

it was called the ERP (European Recovery Program)

you may know it as the Marshall Plan.

after these now wonderful and magnificent socialist hybrid countries completely *DESTROYED* their entire continent, our money rebuilt it since ours was the only economy and infrastructure still functioning and not totally destroyed...and our military might since, which we spent *OUR* money on, safeguarded it.

"It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the U.S.A. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."

- George Marshall


EVERY *SINGLE* COUNTRY ON THAT LIST, TOOK MONEY UNDER THE MARSHALL PLAN or other rebuilding efforts (japan)

EVERY *SINGLE* COUNTRY ON THAT LIST, NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT SECURITY AGAIN BY EITHER OUR PRESENCE THERE OR COOPERATION WITH NATO.

by the time the Marshall Plan had doled out all the money by roughly 1952,
the economy of every country that participated (with the exception of Germany) had far exceeded pre-war levels.

In the two decades after that, a majority of the western european regions experienced unprecedented growth and economic and social prosperity (hmmm, i wonder why...US money, and US protection allowed them to create these "hybrid" states as you call them)

we even gave money to former *ENEMIES* in the Axis, most notably, Germany, Italy, and Austria....and to countries who were just so awesome and ethical, that they stayed neutral...i.e. Switzerland, Sweden and Ireland, instead of fighting against pure evil and tyranny. (but Switzerland was nice enough to hold the Nazi's money, and Sweden supplied Germany with all her steel to make tanks and planes and such)

and, just as an aside, the MArshall Plan, when studied, proves to be the precursor to the Modern European Economic Union. It eliminated tariffs and trade barriers and built a coordinated system of institutions that organized and controlled the european economy on a continent wide scale.

so maybe you should do some research....and acquaint yourself with this logo:

http://marshallplan.freeterritorytrieste.com/myPictures/MARSHALLLOGO.png

and keep your obnoxious and misinformed sermonizing on a level that actually embraces some form of understanding as to the conditions that allowed said hybrid countries that you admire so, to flourish.

Awesome post, Flashy. Well thought out.

 

[B_Nick4444]

oh, my

first, any meaningful discussion concerning the merits, pitfalls, and shortcomings of "socialism" (whichever definition or concept one uses) would necessarily, and inevitably require a calculus of values, and defined intent. Given this, and given the predicate of values-relativism nihilism that informs the current left, no doubts the possibility of relevant discourse.

Relevancy would also require a grounding in a realistic comprehension of economics and its terminology -- that also is lacking.

An example I would cite would be some of the foregoing references to globalism as somehow equating to "leveling of the playing field", rather than the calculated strategy to restructure the American polity, character, and standing among the lesser nations and peoples.

 

[SilverTrain]

oh, my

first, any meaningful discussion concerning the merits, pitfalls, and shortcomings of "socialism" (whichever definition or concept one uses) would necessarily, and inevitably require a calculus of values, and defined intent. Given this, and given the predicate of values-relativism nihilism that informs the current left, no doubts the possibility of relevant discourse.

Relevancy would also require a grounding in a realistic comprehension of economics and its terminology -- that also is lacking.

An example I would cite would be some of the foregoing references to globalism as somehow equating to "leveling of the playing field", rather than the calculated strategy to restructure the American polity, character, and standing among the lesser nations and peoples.

Quit reading shit you don't understand and then inflicting the ensuing semi-plagiaristic murk on the rest of us.

 

[Bbucko]

the lesser nations and peoples.

The quote above is all one ever need read of Nick4444's posts; it encapsulates him quite nicely.

 

[B_Nick4444]

I rest my case

 

[Ericsson1228d]

The quote above is all one ever need read of Nick4444's posts; it encapsulates him quite nicely.

So some nations aren't better than others? The list of rankings earlier in this thread indicates that very fact.

I, for one, would not want to live in one of the third world "countries."

 

[SpeedoGuy]

so, those well functioning hybrid socialist democracies, had roughly 5 decades to perfect their utopian societies, which function rather well, definitely...but they were *ABLE* to do so, because someone else's dime was invested in making *SURE* that soviet tanks never wound up racing through those paradises eating all the croissants and chocolate they could get their hands on.

Thanks for saying what needs to be said.

Its what I feel every time I overhear obnoxiously self-righteous Europeans sneering what an ignorant, backasswards pack of rubes Americans are.

 

[Bbucko]

So some nations aren't better than others? The list of rankings earlier in this thread indicates that very fact.

I, for one, would not want to live in one of the third world "countries."

Nationalism and patriotism are two separate things, Skippy. And you really think there are "lesser" peoples? Really?

 

[B_Nick4444]

And you really think there are "lesser" peoples? Really?

Exhibit A

least common denominator humanism as a result of values relativism (i.e., there are no "real" values or virtues, hence everyone is the same)

so, sets of values that define a people are all the same?

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

I wonder if there's any correlation between:

a) jingoistically waving the american flag, and shoutung "America's the Greatest Country Ever on God's Green Earth!"

and

b) small penis size



John Wayne, Senator Joe McCarthy, Sean Hannity and Milton Friedman (and Nick4444?) all suffer(ed) from small penis complex.

 

[B_Nick4444]

funny dude!

anyway, off to the gym, and all the eye candy

ciao!

 

[Bbucko]

Exhibit A

least common denominator humanism as a result of values relativism (i.e., there are no "real" values or virtues, hence everyone is the same)

so, sets of values that define a people are all the same?

Yes, dear: I refuse to buy into the notion that we are divided into "greater" and "lesser" peoples. I even consider you and I to be of equal value in the cosmic scheme of things.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

willtom27: Sounds like a project. You go get the rulers and I'll try to find some fluffers. I always liked engaging on seemingly "impossible missions" once in a while. :biggrin:

 

[DaveUSADAV]

Check my comments in Capitalism: A Love Story. We devote so much to our military budget because we are paranoid little babies who live in fear of the boogie man. If you don't want terrorism, don't be terrorized. This is how the UK defeated the IRA, how Germany/Italy defeated the Red Brigade. What terrorists want is for us to be just like them- terrorize the people too. Even General McKrystal, Commander of NATO forces in Afhganistan, adovocates "socialism" : defeat the enemy by building roads, schools, hospitals, businesses other than opium, understand tribal relationsips, cultures, and promote anti-corruption democatic institutions. This is part of counterinsurgency; an idea that is anti- conservative, anti-war in nature. By the by, General Marshall and the Marshall plan were both socialists. We did not drive our defeated enemies into the ground like what happened after WW1, we rebuilt them. It worked; the Kamakaizie and the Nazis are gone.

 

[Ericsson1228d]

Nationalism and patriotism are two separate things, Skippy. And you really think there are "lesser" peoples? Really?

Yes, in my opinion there ARE lesser peoples. A few groups:

1.) Societies who allow stoning of rape victims: Somalia, Pakistan, Iran, (the list goes on.

2.) Societies who hang homosexuals: Iran, others.

3.) Societies who practice forced abortions and compulsory sterilizations of certain groups.

4.) Societies who follow Sharia law, which basically treats women as property/second class citizens.

5.) Societies who use children as suicide bombers, kill their own innocent people indiscriminately, and practice state-sponsored terrorism.

6.) Rapists, murderers, pedophiles, gang members, etc etc etc.

So, yeah, in my book, there are lesser peoples in this world.

And there are not "lunatic fringe" groups doing this- these atrocious activities are legal, supported, and enforced by the governments in place.

 

[Bbucko]

Yes, in my opinion there ARE lesser peoples. A few groups:

1.) Societies who allow stoning of rape victims: Somalia, Pakistan, Iran, (the list goes on.

2.) Societies who hang homosexuals: Iran, others.

3.) Societies who practice forced abortions and compulsory sterilizations of certain groups.

4.) Societies who follow Sharia law, which basically treats women as property/second class citizens.

5.) Societies who use children as suicide bombers, kill their own innocent people indiscriminately, and practice state-sponsored terrorism.

6.) Rapists, murderers, pedophiles, gang members, etc etc etc.

So, yeah, in my book, there are lesser peoples in this world.

And there are not "lunatic fringe" groups doing this- these atrocious activities are legal, supported, and enforced by the governments in place.

These are examples of evil and should be condemned. But they are not examples of a "lesser" humanity.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

-A Lincoln.

 

[Ericsson1228d]

These are examples of evil and should be condemned. But they are not examples of a "lesser" humanity.

Quote:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
-A Lincoln.

I agree completely with Lincoln. We were all created equal, but those groups I mentioned above became lesser forms of humanity. They can choose to not stone a 13 year old rape victim, yet they do. So, while they may have been created equal, they have made themselves lesser. Same goes for pedophiles, etc.

 

[D_Mansworthy Meatwrench III]

Layman's Fix to "Big Word Problems":

Fascism-
When I ain't in charge.
Monarchy-
When we ain't in charge.
Imperialism-
When that guy is in charge.
Capitalism-
When whoever has the most money is in charge.
Socialism-
When everyone but me is in charge.
Communism-
When they are in charge, just not me.
Democracy-
When 51% is in charge, just not me.
Republic-
When I vote someone in charge, but I am not in charge.

See? Who said this stuff isn't easy!
America-
Add 1-Republic, 1-Democracy, 1-Capitalism which = Clusterfuck

You-
The same as Me, not in charge.
Not even Charles is in Charge.

"Lesser Peoples"-
Everyone in Charge.
After all, they refuse to get a real job, and work for a living.
Instead, they take my money, don't do anything at all and tell me to go make a living, so they can have more money, so they can do less with it. Rinse....NOW Repeat.

I like to think ole Thomas Jefferson would get a hoot outta this.
Maybe not though. You never know.

 

[Bbucko]

Dehumanization:

Dehumanization is the process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements. Dehumanization may be directed by an organization (such as a state) or may be the composite of individual sentiments and actions, as with some types of de facto racism. State-organized dehumanization has been directed against perceived racial or ethnic groups, nationalities (or "foreigners" in general), religious groups, genders, minorities of various sexual orientations (eg. homosexuals), disabled people as a class, economic [eg. the homeless] and social classes, and many other groups.

Sociologists and historians often view dehumanization as central to some or all types of wars. Governments sometimes present "enemy" civilians or soldiers as less than human so that voters will be more likely to support a war they may otherwise consider mass murder. Dictatorships use the same process to prevent opposition by citizens. Such efforts often depend on preexisting racist, sectarian or otherwise biased beliefs, which governments play upon through various types of media, presenting "enemies" as barbaric, undeserving of rights, and a threat to the nation. Alternately, states sometimes present the enemy government or way of life as barbaric and its citizens as childlike and incapable of managing their own affairs. Such arguments have been used as a pretext for colonialism.
The Holocaust of World War II and the Rwandan Genocide have both been cited as atrocities predicated upon government-organized campaigns of dehumanization, while crimes like lynching (especially in the United States) are often thought of as the result of popular bigotry and government apathy. The main cause behind the American mutilation of Japanese war dead has been stated to be dehumanization.
Anthropologists Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson famously wrote that dehumanization might well be considered "the fifth horseman of the apocalypse" because of the inestimable damage it has dealt to society. When people become things, the logic follows, they become dispensable - and any atrocity can be justified.
Dehumanization can be seen outside of overtly violent conflicts, as in political debates where opponents are presented as collectively stupid or inherently evil. Such "good-versus-evil" claims help end substantive debate. (See also thought-terminating cliché).

In dehumanizing evil you perpetuate it, Skippy.

 

[Ericsson1228d]

Dehumanization:

In dehumanizing evil you perpetuate it, Skippy.

Well, call me intolerant of evil if you will, but at least I can recognize that I am not a "perfect" person and also recognize that people through their own actions, become evil and inhuman.

I'm not going to start debating this. In my mind, evil people can rot. They will all be judged in the end.

Let's not hijack the thread.