|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 3:34:24 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1032
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
Unfortunately, I think you've been duped by the revised history that is being taught in schools. It is precisely because of the "grit" in the bellies of our forefathers that the United States grew into the country it is. Did luck have anything to do with it? Possibly some, but not that much. We were once a great moral and spiritual nation. I believe the hand of God led us to what we became.
Then, during the latter part of the 1900s, things began to change. The 1960s and '70s saw the radical socialists beginning to make inroads into the nation's moral and spiritual values. Political correctness reared its ugly head. Slowly, one by one, our freedoms and moral principles were traded for political correctness and for "security" (think of "mutual assured destruction" What a ridiculous premise).
The spiritual, moral, gritty individualism that made America great is dissolving into the socialist "utopia" that tries to promise that we all must be equal and share our assets (regardless of an individual's efforts to earn them), under threat of law.
You can't make us believe that America is only where it is because of luck!
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
Culture is regional, I agree, and important, too. But I think it's naive to assume that America's culture is the big reason we're where we are. I think we've mostly been profoundly lucky, and blessed (among other things) with an extremely large, secure, and resource-rich landmass. We have a weak neighbor to the south, a friendly (and arguably weak) neighbor to the north, and large numbers of fish to the east and west. What has gotten us this far is not grit, I think, but good fortune. And I think that we have squandered that fortune since the end of the Second World War. The rest of the world is catching up fast, and we've been clinging to the wrong things, reacting to the wrong threats. I think the world's going to pass us by as a result.
Update:
Thank you, rlj, for the insight that you've provided this thread.
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 3:47:08 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1931
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
Unfortunately, I think you've been duped by the revised history that is being taught in schools. It is precisely because of the "grit" in the bellies of our forefathers that the United States grew into the country it is. Did luck have anything to do with it? Possibly some, but not that much. We were once a great moral and spiritual nation. I believe the hand of God led us to what we became.
We may have claimed Christianity, but we were never a "moral" nation. Barring murderous oppression (which we didn't have), rebelling against your government is not moral. Manifest Destiny and conquering native tribes was not moral. Keeping slaves was not moral. Lynching blacks was not moral.
Our morality wasn't better in the past, it was just different. Things that were acceptable then aren't anymore. Things that were unacceptable then are acceptable now.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 4:29:20 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2138
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did ANY of these people, Germans... Italians... Russians, realize what their leaders of 'Change' were about to bring upon their heads.
Are you in any way familiar with the Weimar Republic, life under the Romanav's and life in Italy before Mussolini?
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 5:05:47 PM
|
|
|
csl7037
Posts: 1623
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
We may have claimed Christianity, but we were never a "moral" nation.
You're right. It was definitely more a "strength of character" and a strong belief in self-determination (that's pretty much gone now) and not a moral or spiritual strength that built this country. But it certainly wasn't just luck or good resources.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 8:01:12 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2131
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
I hope you will bear with me as I answer each of your citations individually. I do wish you had taken the time to read them before posting. For, you either did not read the entire articles or selectively quoted to make a point that the writer did not intend to make.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
Well let's see:
quote:
None of the contemporary economic analyses of privatization takes into account an
important, earlier case: the privatization policy implemented by the National Socialist (Nazi)
Party in Germany. The modern literature on privatization, the recent literature on the twentiethcentury
German economy (e.g. Braun, 2003) and the history of Germany’s publicly owned
enterprises (e.g. Wengenroth, 2000) all ignore this early privatization experience. Some authors
occasionally mention the re-privatization of banks but make no further comment or analysis (e.g.
Barkai, 1990, p. 216; James, 1995, p. 291). Other works, like Hardach (1980, p. 66) and
Buchheim and Scherner (2005, p. 17), mention the sale of State-owned firms in Nazi Germany
only to support the idea that the Nazi government opposed widespread state ownership of firms
and do not carry out any analysis of these privatizations.
http://www.ub.es/graap/nazi.pdf
First, you seem to believe that Socialism is dependent on Nationalization. I never said that. It's a red herring. Having said that, the article that you cited was written expressly to ask the question as to WHY the Nazi regime departed from the trend of the day and privatize some firms and functions while other Western countries did not. That is the question being asked and answered. (Top of page 3)
The answer that comes up over and over is that the Nazi Regime was rewarding wealthy industrialists that supported the Nazi cause. We see this with Fritz Thyssen and United Steel, etc. He has been one of only two big industrialists to give support the Nazi party before they came to power. Once in power it was payback time. (Page 5).
As for the bank privatization, please take the time to read the footnotes on page 6.
"10 The degree of control exercised by the state in the large commercial banks by means of public ownership is open to discussion. Most probably, state interference through ownership varied according to the relevance of the publicly owned stake. Whereas interference in the Deutsche Bank was relatively slight [Feldman (1995, p. 272), James (2004, p. 45-49)], intervention in the Dresdner Bank was intense [James (2001, p. 16), Feldman (2004, p. 23)]. In any case, the reform of banking regulation that began with the German Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise a tight control over private banks. Dessauer (1935) provides an extensive explanation of the German Bank Act of 1934; Nathan (1944b) adds
information on subsequent changes in regulation.
11 Baumgarten (1937, pp. 826-827). Other relevant stakes of the state in banks were 70 per cent of the Allgemeine Deutsche Kreditantstalt, and 66.6 per cent of the Norddeutsche Kreditbank (Sweezy, 1941, p.31). Russell (1935, p. 204-208) offers a detailed analysis of the ownership relations between the Reich and the commercial banks."
A regime does not have to OWN an industry to effectively socialize it through heavy handed regulation. "Tight Control" means "Tight Control" You're contention that 'privatization' negates socialism as a central tenate is just plain wrong.
Page 7 offers this observation regarding utilities. "The Nazi government imposed several types of limitations and obstacles on municipally owned enterprises. Since 1935 the municipal firms were subject to taxation (Sweezy, 1941, p. 32). Administrative and financial requirements were made more restrictive (Marx, 1937, p. 142; Pollock, 1938, p. 145)."
Oh! And look at footnote 16. Again, it says that while the shipping companies where 'privatized' the ship owners joined the Nazi Party as a group to avoid additonal govenment interference.
On page 20, this is emphasized again.
"The reprivatization of United Steel Works, which put Fritz Thyssen in the leading position in the trust, appears to be an example of the use of privatization to increase political support. It is worth remembering that Thyssen had been one of the only two big industrialists to support the Nazi Party before it became the most powerful party in the political scene. Another privatization that can be linked to politics is the sale of publicly owned shares of Hamburg-SüdAmerika to a Hamburg syndicate in September 1936, when the ship-owners of Hamburg had joined the Nazi party as a group. footnote #38"
But, I think you REALLY want to read pages 13 and 14 where the nature of the privatization was described. And, we read on Page 16:
"Nazi policy was heavily dependent on Hitler’s decisions. Hitler made no specific comments on nationalization or denationalization in Mein Kampf. Even if Hitler was an enemy of free market economies (Overy, 1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer of economic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642). The Nazi regime rejected liberalism, and was strongly against free competition and regulation of the economy by market mechanisms (Barkai, 1990, p. 10). Still, as a social Darwinist, Hitler was reluctant to totally dispense with private property and competition (Turner, 1985a, p. 71; Hayes, 1987, p. 71).
Hitler’s solution was to combine autonomy and a large role for private initiative and ownership rights within firms with the total subjection of property rights outside the firm to State control. As Nathan pointed out (1944a, p. 5) “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur was narrowly circumscribed.” In other words, there was private initiative in the production process, but no private initiative was allowed in the distribution of the product. Owners could act freely within their firms, but faced tight restrictions in the market."
The point is that your argument that Hitler was not a SOCIALIST because he privatized some industries fails to prove anything since it was pragmatism and either payback or bribery for support that was largely behind the privatization effort.
In other words, the owners were bribed or rewarded by being able to reap some financial reward but the actual industry was completely controlled by government oversight. Hitler himself
said this (page 17):
Hitler when questioned on socialization: “Why bother with such half-measures when I have far
more important matters in hand, such as the people themselves?. . .Why need we trouble to
socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
Socialism comes in many forms. While some of the more radical Democrats, like Maxine Waters would nationalize everything, Obama would be content to leave firms privatized and achieve the goals of socialism with extreme regulation and taxation.
He would, like Hitler, be content to 'socialize human beings'. That's were the REAL power is.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 8:06:29 PM
|
|
|
csl7037
Posts: 1623
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
Hitler himself said this (page 17):
Hitler when questioned on socialization: “Why bother with such half-measures when I have far
more important matters in hand, such as the people themselves?. . .Why need we trouble to
socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
Socialism comes in many forms. While some of the more radical Democrats, like Maxine Waters would nationalize everything, Obama would be content to leave firms privatized and achieve the goals of socialism with extreme regulation and taxation.
He would, like Hitler, be content to 'socialize human beings'. That's were the REAL power is.
In case TMeeks lost anybody up there (she almost lost me  )...in case you didn't make it to the end, this is worth repeating.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 8:11:17 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2131
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Of course, I am familiar with that. And, those conditions set up the people to accept just about any 'Change'.
Unfortunately, I have to ask you if you are familiar with what the people went through AFTER they got their change. I visited Phorziem in 1982. In every block of that city, the buildings are constructed in two colors of bricks. The lower quarter of the building was the color of the brick used BEFORE the Nazis brought 'change' and the top 3/4s of the building is the color of the bricks used to rebuild the city. In the case of the German people, the 'change' that gave them so much hope in the 1930s ended up bringing far, far greater destruction down on their heads.
You seem to infer that life under the Weimar Republic was bleaker than that brought about by the leader promising 'change'.
As for Mussolini, I am sure you know that he was the editor of the communist party newspaper before founding the FASCIST party. Again, it was the Italian people, themselves, that eventually hanged him upside down... the same man that they had cheered for bringing 'change' a few years earlier! Times were tough for Italians before Mussolini; but, all of us know that life under Mussolini became pure hell.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
Did ANY of these people, Germans... Italians... Russians, realize what their leaders of 'Change' were about to bring upon their heads.
Are you in any way familiar with the Weimar Republic, life under the Romanav's and life in Italy before Mussolini?
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 8:25:59 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2131
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Now, on to citation #2.
I am appalled that you, again, selectively extracted quotes that supported your contention that Hitler was not a socialist. You failed to include this little gem...
"Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.
To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education."
Sound familiar?
I urge all to read the ENTIRE article that was cited. And, it will be clear that while Hitler did not care for communism's connection with Jews, he DID believe in National socialism whereby German individuals became collective tools of the state.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
As far as Hitler's hatred of communism and socialism that is well known. Who for example launched the Crusade Against Bolshevism? There is also this:
quote:
Hitler saw socialism as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Many of the socialist leaders in Germany, including Kurt Eisner, Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst Toller and Eugen Levine were Jews. So also were many of the leaders of the October Revolution in Russia. This included Leon Trotsky, Gregory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Dimitri Bogrov, Karl Radek, Yakov Sverdlov, Maxim Litvinov, Adolf Joffe, and Moisei Uritsky. It had not escaped Hitler's notice that Karl Marx, the prophet of socialism, had also been a Jew.
It was no coincidence that Jews had joined socialist and communist parties in Europe. Jews had been persecuted for centuries and therefore were attracted to a movement that proclaimed that all men and women deserved to be treated as equals. This message was reinforced when on 10th July, 1918, the Bolshevik government in Russia passed a law that abolished all discrimination between Jews and non-Jews.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 8:30:10 PM
|
|
|
csl7037
Posts: 1623
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
Gender is tough to identify on forums so I'll reveal that I'm a 'HE'. [:D
LOL, I've enjoyed your opinions so much on parenting and education forums I took you for a Mom! So sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 8:41:55 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2131
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
In Mein Kamph Hitler offered some insight into his thinking on exercise of power and in particular the important role of propaganda, his contempt of parliamentary democracy and the Weimar Republic. Hitler also wrote of the need for a national revival and the quest for living space. Hitler linked his hatred of communism with his hatred of Jews. In Hitler’s mind Russia was the centre of a Jewish conspiracy, a concept reinforced in Hitler’s thinking by the fact that many of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were Jewish.
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3197.php
It was not socialism, per se, that repulsed Hitler when it came to the communist form of socialism. It was the fact that many of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were Jewish just as it says in your citation.
This was your weakest link because it actually said nothing. It would probably have been better to use Wikipedia, which has this to say:
"Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, welfare state ideology[11], racism, collectivism,[12][13] eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism,[14][15][13] anti-communism, anti-capitalism[16], and totalitarianism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Collectivism? Hmm.... isn't that a socialist concept?
Anti-Capitolism? Hmmm... That also has a familiar ring to it.
You see, if you have collectivism and anto-capitolism, then you have socialism is some form. And, like all socialism it meant loss of freedoms for those who fell under its spell.
< Message edited by TMeeks -- 9/21/2008 8:48:04 PM >
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 10:07:33 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
Culture is regional, I agree, and important, too. But I think it's naive to assume that America's culture is the big reason we're where we are. I think we've mostly been profoundly lucky, and blessed (among other things) with an extremely large, secure, and resource-rich landmass. We have a weak neighbor to the south, a friendly (and arguably weak) neighbor to the north, and large numbers of fish to the east and west. What has gotten us this far is not grit, I think, but good fortune. And I think that we have squandered that fortune since the end of the Second World War. The rest of the world is catching up fast, and we've been clinging to the wrong things, reacting to the wrong threats. I think the world's going to pass us by as a result.
Update:
Thank you, rlj, for the insight that you've provided this thread.
You can't make us believe that America is only where it is because of luck!
As I said, culture doubtlessly played a part. But I think it was relatively minor, and I've heard some arguments that actually put a regressive spin on culture in America (with respect to how it impacts development).
On the other hand, the fact that we are an incredibly difficult nation to attack, have had no belligerent neighbors for a long time, and have massive amounts of land and resources compared to almost every other nation in the world... I think there's a pretty compelling case that... well, location, location, location.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 10:37:49 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1300
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
On the other hand, the fact that we are an incredibly difficult nation to attack, have had no belligerent neighbors for a long time, and have massive amounts of land and resources compared to almost every other nation in the world... I think there's a pretty compelling case that... well, location, location, location.
While America has certainly had its share of good fortune, location being a big part of that I don't believe in luck, here or anywhere.
We've had no belligerant neighbors because we defeated them in war (and their mother nations such as Spain & Britain) before they could become a problem.
Don't discount the delicate diplomacy it took to keep us out of an early war with France and more conflict with Britain. I think that would have "left a mark" on us.
We weren't as big at first but we grew before other countries could move into our territory. Manifest Destiny may not have been moral but it was certainly effective.
Our Constitution is the longest active constitution in the world. Thats the wisdom of Americans, not luck. The ultimate greatness of this country is the fact that we were the first to try what many European philosophers wrote about, government for the people by the people. And we succeeded. If we failed or stuck with the Articles it may have resulted in the new American nation being separated into several smaller countries (instead of what they bacame states)
And what if the Civil War had split this country? I'm not sure we'd just be two nations, once precedent was set the South could have split into several nations. The fact that the American people chose Lincoln to lead us was not luck and no accident. We could have easily become another Europe with all manner of relatively small warring nations as opposed to one unified nation. And with that would have gone all that land and resources we were "lucky" enough to have available. It would have been split up ala Europe.
I could go on about World War 2 (and FDR) and several other examples but the bottom line is this: America was dealt a good hand no doubt but we took that hand and played it to the hilt to become the lone superpower; successful beyond any expectations. And I pray we remember what got us here and what it will take to keep us here.
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 11:02:38 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2138
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Our Constitution is the longest active constitution in the world.
What about the Magna Carta which occasionally shows up in US court rulings? That goes back to the 12th century.
TMeeks you are correct in I could have read the one long article more closely just look at the time posted. However I have never looked at Totalitarianism and equated it with socialism. A government can be totalitarian and some would say (and this can be argued very well as I have just found out in doing some looking around and reading what you have posted) it is also socialist but a government can be socialist but not be totalitarian. The three governments you mentioned in the OP were all totalitarian but there are many examples of socialist governments that are not. Sweden is hardly totalitarian and the same with Denmark and several others.
As far as socialists in the US go we have a socialist in power who is bailing out banks. He routinely gives thousands of dollars each year at tax time to people who haven't earned it. He has also put restrictions on our travel by forcing us to purchase more paperwork in the form of the new passports, passport laws and no fly lists. I am quite sure you are aware that you travelled nowhere in the communist countries without having your paperwork put in order for the collective good of everyone. They didn't want terrorists on their roads or in their airports, train stations or bus stations either.
If you don't want socialism who is left to vote for?
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 11:13:37 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1300
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
What about the Magna Carta which occasionally shows up in US court rulings? That goes back to the 12th century.
Is Britain's government bound to the Magna Carta like ours is bound to the Constitution? Is it the law of their land? Thats why I said "longest active constitution".
Like many things the U.S. Constitution isn't lauded for its originality but rather because it has worked for so long (220 plus years and counting). They didn't invent or even reinvent the wheel, they took the best innovations of the wheel and built a better wheel.
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 11:43:55 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
quote:
On the other hand, the fact that we are an incredibly difficult nation to attack, have had no belligerent neighbors for a long time, and have massive amounts of land and resources compared to almost every other nation in the world... I think there's a pretty compelling case that... well, location, location, location.
While America has certainly had its share of good fortune, location being a big part of that I don't believe in luck, here or anywhere.
If luck is a fortunate outcome of an event you had no control over, I don't see how you can't believe in luck, unless that was just a rhetorical flourish on your part.
quote:
We've had no belligerent neighbors because we defeated them in war (and their mother nations such as Spain & Britain) before they could become a problem.
Don't discount the delicate diplomacy it took to keep us out of an early war with France and more conflict with Britain. I think that would have "left a mark" on us.
We weren't as big at first but we grew before other countries could move into our territory. Manifest Destiny may not have been moral but it was certainly effective.
Our Constitution is the longest active constitution in the world. Thats the wisdom of Americans, not luck. The ultimate greatness of this country is the fact that we were the first to try what many European philosophers wrote about, government for the people by the people. And we succeeded. If we failed or stuck with the Articles it may have resulted in the new American nation being separated into several smaller countries (instead of what they bacame states)
And what if the Civil War had split this country? I'm not sure we'd just be two nations, once precedent was set the South could have split into several nations. The fact that the American people chose Lincoln to lead us was not luck and no accident. We could have easily become another Europe with all manner of relatively small warring nations as opposed to one unified nation. And with that would have gone all that land and resources we were "lucky" enough to have available. It would have been split up ala Europe.
I don't see how any of these are attributable to some fuzzy "grit" concept over luck. I don't dispute the novelty or greatness of the Founding Fathers, but I do dispute that, say, if we had been surrounded by neighbors similar to almost any European nation, the Fathers' experiment would have been obliterated by the British or nearby opportunists eager for land and power. This factor of relative isolation and relative resource wealth comes up time and again in American history.
quote:
I could go on about World War 2 (and FDR) and several other examples but the bottom line is this: America was dealt a good hand no doubt but we took that hand and played it to the hilt to become the lone superpower; successful beyond any expectations. And I pray we remember what got us here and what it will take to keep us here.
In the Second World War, America, barring the Pearl Harbor attack, was essentially unscathed when it entered the conflict. At the end of the conflict, though we had lost a great many people to the war, our infrastructure was completely intact. This cannot be said of any other nation involved. It is my opinion that, though we had a massive advantage as a result of our fortunate location, we have squandered that luck since the Second World War. Prior to that war, I think that America's success was remarkable, but largely because of, again, massive amounts of natural resources, land, immigrants, and isolation from aggressive neighbors.
We had a bunch of great stuff, and little to fear from others.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 11:44:03 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2131
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Now, that last question is a good one. You see, one can have corporate socialism as well are populace socialism. The New Deal took us down a road whereby both business and individuals suck at the breast of mother government.
But, having said that, there are differences in degree. The Constitution, as another has point out, puts a break on rampant socialism as long as the three arms of government are in equalibrium. But, as the power of the Supreme Court has grown, and those with socialist aspirations have fed that growth, the Constitution's ability to keep up free from socialisms innevitable loss of freedom has been weakend.
The economy, the war and anything else one might claim as important in this election are simply diversions from the real prize... being able to appoint Supreme Court Justices. If I were John McCaine I would pound that home over and over and over. If the democrats win this time, the Constitution will just another relic of the past, to be ignored for present day fads.
It is the court that is the goal for the radical left. That is what REALLY matters to them the most.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
Our Constitution is the longest active constitution in the world.
What about the Magna Carta which occasionally shows up in US court rulings? That goes back to the 12th century.
TMeeks you are correct in I could have read the one long article more closely just look at the time posted. However I have never looked at Totalitarianism and equated it with socialism. A government can be totalitarian and some would say (and this can be argued very well as I have just found out in doing some looking around and reading what you have posted) it is also socialist but a government can be socialist but not be totalitarian. The three governments you mentioned in the OP were all totalitarian but there are many examples of socialist governments that are not. Sweden is hardly totalitarian and the same with Denmark and several others.
As far as socialists in the US go we have a socialist in power who is bailing out banks. He routinely gives thousands of dollars each year at tax time to people who haven't earned it. He has also put restrictions on our travel by forcing us to purchase more paperwork in the form of the new passports, passport laws and no fly lists. I am quite sure you are aware that you travelled nowhere in the communist countries without having your paperwork put in order for the collective good of everyone. They didn't want terrorists on their roads or in their airports, train stations or bus stations either.
If you don't want socialism who is left to vote for?
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/21/2008 11:56:24 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2131
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
Sweden is hardly totalitarian and the same with Denmark and several others.
No. Although recently they have been spying on their own citizens with a new law that passes a while back.
But, if you want to see one of the side effects of socialism, then read this article about aging in Sweden. It's extremely sad.
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001971/Skerly/Skerly04/Skerly04.html
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/22/2008 12:14:50 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
Sweden is hardly totalitarian and the same with Denmark and several others.
No. Although recently they have been spying on their own citizens with a new law that passes a while back.
But, if you want to see one of the side effects of socialism, then read this article about aging in Sweden. It's extremely sad.
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001971/Skerly/Skerly04/Skerly04.html
If that's a side effect of socialism, I'd expect to see it pretty much everywhere. The fact that there's a joke in the body of that article comparing them with Danes and Norsefolk...
Stories proliferate about Swedish timidity and shyness. There's one about the desert island inhabited by two Danes, two Norwegians and two Swedes. After a year, the Danes had a thriving farm together, the Norwegians were always bickering, and the Swedes were still waiting to be introduced.
...makes me question the importance of socialism here. I mean, Denmark and Norway aren't exactly known for anti-socialist sentiment. I suspect the Sweden problem has more to do with the balooning elderly population and a paucity of ways to care for them and, as the article notes, the relative shyness of the Swedes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism - 9/22/2008 6:45:25 AM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1300
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If luck is a fortunate outcome of an event you had no control over, I don't see how you can't believe in luck, unless that was just a rhetorical flourish on your part.
They had plenty of control over it. Most people who migrated to a new place did so out of necessity. Not enough food here, lets go elsewhere. The very first Americans (colonists) chose to come here to escape religious persecution and / or start a new life.
The fact that we have no neighbors is due to definitive action on our part. If the Founding Fathers hadn't decided to replace the weak Articles of Confederation with The Constitution it is entirely possible all of our states would have been tiny nations. Then we would have been just like Europe, albeit not having to worry about Asian & African neighbors (who also left Europe alone more or less but Europe didn't leave them alone). If we had not taken all the land west of the 13 colonies via war & purchase we would have ended up with neighbors one way or another.
You are right in saying that America has been fortunate. I propose to you that no successful enterprise has been without good fortune. At the same time if that good fortune is squandered then there will be no success. Every successful enterprise has also had men and women who make the right decisions and take advantage of fortune's good hand to rise to greater heights. America did that. Is there any level of success America could achieve in which we would deserve credit for it?
And if we blow it bad luck won't be to blame. It works both ways.
Luck is a refuge for the weak, an excuse for history's losers. I try not to use the word because of what it has become (an excuse for failure and a club to beat down the success of others) but sometimes its unavoidable in normal discourse. I haven't found a suitable replacement for good luck, most of the others seem to have too much "gravitas". The closest I've come is best wishes
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
