The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism

The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

TMeeks -> The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/19/2008 9:52:53 PM)
In pre-war Germany, two great forces fought for control of Germany... Communism and NAZISM. In Italy, the same thing happened. But, this time it was FASCISM vs. Communism. What most have failed to appreciate is that each was a side of the same coin. And, the real battle that got lost in the fray between the socialist factions was that for economic freedom and limited government. Communism, FASCISM and NAZISM all share a common heritage, socialism. Each of these movements declared that the well being of the people could only be achieved by socialist ideals and regulating industry to the point where it could not function freely. So, Mussolini nationalized the railroads and the trains ran on time.. for a while. The allure of Hitler and Mussolini, like Lenin before them was that they promised 'common folk' a piece of the pie by taking from the rich, which in Germany's case was said to be the Jews, and giving that wealth to "the people'. Today, after years of educational control by the left of the 60's, the country seems poised to be ready to embrace socialism without really understanding that it IS socialism. Like the Germans and the Italians about 50% of our populace seem to think that the government's job is to take care of them. Where that money is suppose to come from and how much freedom will be lost in the process simply doesn't cross their minds. As I have written a bit before, I have a copy of a magazine, published in 1917, that waxes eloquent about how Lenin and company have finally given democracy to the Russian people. In hindsight that article appears absurdly naive and patently wrong. Just the opposite happened. And, today, less than 100 years later the Russian people find themselves a country run as a criminal enterprise of thugs and bullies. Did ANY of these people, Germans... Italians... Russians, realize what their leaders of 'Change' were about to bring upon their heads. No. And, as I speak with young to middle aged young people I find that they don't even question the long term wisdom of policies that have never really been fully voiced by the one in which they are putting their trust. They only know that this charasmatic leader is going to give them healthcare, free education and trains that run on time. I understand the allure of socialism. But, it's sad to see it... Because, the outcome has been proven over and over again when enough time has passed.

stamper_ben -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/19/2008 10:19:26 PM)
Look at the response to hurricane Ike. It finished its destruction and was headed north Saturday afternoon. On Sunday the WalMart near me was open and supplying food, propane and batteries. FEMA was no where to be seen. Now, I have to get to work on time. Where's the non-existent train station?[8D]

Dubya -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/19/2008 10:26:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stamper_ben Look at the response to hurricane Ike. It finished its destruction and was headed north Saturday afternoon. On Sunday the WalMart near me was open and supplying food, propane and batteries. FEMA was no where to be seen. Now, I have to get to work on time. Where's the non-existent train station?[8D] In fact, private citizens were driving to San Antonio for supplies and returning to Houston. When the FEMA director was asked why the FEMA truck had trouble getting to Houston when citizens could drive to San antonio and back he began making excuses about how long a drive they had, the logistical problems, etc. Typical bureaucrat.

csl7037 -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/19/2008 11:15:22 PM)
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. It's just about unbearable to watch what's unfolding in our country right now. Even if we narrowly escape the worst case scenario in the upcoming election, it's a much bigger issue and the tide will not be turned so easily, if it can be at all.

csl7037 -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 8:25:24 AM)
I think this is probably the most important point being made on this forum right now. A few people are looking but no one is responding. I know it's a bit much to grasp but this is so important that we understand!! I want to bump this up.

rlj -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 8:50:33 AM)
quote: Communism, FASCISM and NAZISM all share a common heritage, socialism. Each of these movements declared that the well being of the people could only be achieved by socialist ideals and regulating industry to the point where it could not function freely. So, Mussolini nationalized the railroads and the trains ran on time.. for a while. Actually business was privately owned in Nazi Germany as opposed to publicly owned such as in the Soviet Union. This is why for example that private German Companies have to deal with backlash from some of their wartime activities. The government's involvement in the companies was mainly to provide them with slave labor. While there was a socialistic side to the Nazi's this was strangled out and Hitler would have none of it.

huangshan -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 9:15:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Given the poor historical analysis at the start of the thread, what does that say about the people furiously nodding at it?

litfire2000 -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 5:05:39 PM)
much of what you say is true...Nazi is compound of two German words National Socialiste (sp)...or National Socialist ...Hitler did believe in government control of everything, but not necessarily ownership...the slave labor was paid labor but, the company did not pay the laborer, it paid the government

ekserekseez -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 5:14:05 PM)
Apparently lots of people throughout history have thought it was easier to work for a government that would redistribute property, rather than get property on their own through some legitimate means (earn it, inherit it, or marry into it). The vast majority of Americans, including many who call themselves Republicans and conservatives, are socialists at heart.

Dancre -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 6:24:57 PM)
Once again, T, you make us think. :) I agree completely. These young folks run after Obama as he tells them what to listen to, who's a liar, how to work, how to raise their kids and they smile saying, I love change. I remember the Soviet Union and the hell communism caused. Yet these youngings chase after Comrade Obama, thinking this IS the way. OI!! Already Obama is snaking in his communist ways. I pray Comrade Obama loses this election. i don't want to stand in line to buy potatoes while our great leader tells me how to raise my kids, where to work, live and believe. quote: ORIGINAL: TMeeks In pre-war Germany, two great forces fought for control of Germany... Communism and NAZISM. In Italy, the same thing happened. But, this time it was FASCISM vs. Communism. What most have failed to appreciate is that each was a side of the same coin. And, the real battle that got lost in the fray between the socialist factions was that for economic freedom and limited government. Communism, FASCISM and NAZISM all share a common heritage, socialism. Each of these movements declared that the well being of the people could only be achieved by socialist ideals and regulating industry to the point where it could not function freely. So, Mussolini nationalized the railroads and the trains ran on time.. for a while. The allure of Hitler and Mussolini, like Lenin before them was that they promised 'common folk' a piece of the pie by taking from the rich, which in Germany's case was said to be the Jews, and giving that wealth to "the people'. Today, after years of educational control by the left of the 60's, the country seems poised to be ready to embrace socialism without really understanding that it IS socialism. Like the Germans and the Italians about 50% of our populace seem to think that the government's job is to take care of them. Where that money is suppose to come from and how much freedom will be lost in the process simply doesn't cross their minds. As I have written a bit before, I have a copy of a magazine, published in 1917, that waxes eloquent about how Lenin and company have finally given democracy to the Russian people. In hindsight that article appears absurdly naive and patently wrong. Just the opposite happened. And, today, less than 100 years later the Russian people find themselves a country run as a criminal enterprise of thugs and bullies. Did ANY of these people, Germans... Italians... Russians, realize what their leaders of 'Change' were about to bring upon their heads. No. And, as I speak with young to middle aged young people I find that they don't even question the long term wisdom of policies that have never really been fully voiced by the one in which they are putting their trust. They only know that this charasmatic leader is going to give them healthcare, free education and trains that run on time. I understand the allure of socialism. But, it's sad to see it... Because, the outcome has been proven over and over again when enough time has passed.

Dancre -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 6:29:57 PM)
Poor historical analysis??? What??? Now folks are rewriting history?? Sorry, Huang, but that stuff really happened. There are documents out there to prove it. Socialism, communism and Nazism doesn't work. Obama believes in communism and it didn't work in the past, it won't work now. quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Given the poor historical analysis at the start of the thread, what does that say about the people furiously nodding at it?

iluvatar -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 6:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TMeeks As I have written a bit before, I have a copy of a magazine, published in 1917, that waxes eloquent about how Lenin and company have finally given democracy to the Russian people. In hindsight that article appears absurdly naive and patently wrong. Just the opposite happened. And, today, less than 100 years later the Russian people find themselves a country run as a criminal enterprise of thugs and bullies. But that's not Lenin's government. Communism fell 17 years ago. They have a market economy and a democratically elected government - essentially having traded one group of thugs for another. -Dan.

todd_t -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 8:14:40 PM)
quote: Obama believes in communism and it didn't work in the past, it won't work now. For the most part, China is probably the exception to communism working on a large scale - even though they are heavily capitalist as well. As for Obama being a closet communist, give me a break. That Red Scare garbage played itself out of town years and years ago.

csl7037 -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 8:24:20 PM)
If you study history, you find that nations really do have a national "personality" - I think that's why communism seems to "work" (in a way) in China. And the Russians have their own unique personality. I had a Russian Studies professor in college who was convinced back in about 1991 that Russia would have another czar within five years. That didn't really happen - but their version of "democracy" is unique, to say the least. They still submit to the corrupt thugs in charge as if to royalty in a way that is incomprensible to us in the US. My concern is that I see the "personality" of the US being lost. The value of the American worker that McCain has been talking about, I fear, is really a thing of the past. I see the determination and drive and "grit" that has gotten this country to this point as a thing of the past or at least something of the minority now. I am really afraid where this road we're on will take us. People that say Obama is not heading us down a road toward Socialism don't understand that, while he may not look exactly like Stalin or Marx, it is an American Version of Socialism - a subtle version that, I fear, could be more insidious.

bzirk -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 9:27:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. It's just about unbearable to watch what's unfolding in our country right now. Even if we narrowly escape the worst case scenario in the upcoming election, it's a much bigger issue and the tide will not be turned so easily, if it can be at all. It's just one of the byproducts of the general dumbing down of America through sticking our heads in the idiot box to entertain us or computer games or any number of somewhat passive things that don't require us to actually think and certainly never to examine something for its veracity. I also blame the general decline in education, which is just a reflection of the public's lazy thinking. And of course all of this is due to many of us (Christians as well as non) focusing on anything but what the Lord desires.

TMeeks -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 10:08:22 PM)
That is complete nonsense. The "Socialism" side of Nazism was NEVER strangled out of it ny Hitler. He simply took it to a new form of collectivism. The NAZI machine had COMPLETE CONTROL over the private companies. Encarta says this: "B Centralization and Coordination From 1933 to 1935 the democratic structure of Germany was replaced with a completely centralized state. The autonomy previously exercised in many matters by the provincial governments was eliminated, and these subnational governments were transformed into strictly controlled instruments of the central government. The Reichstag retained only a ceremonial, not a legislative, function. By a process of coordination (Gleichschaltung), all private organizations of business, labor, and agriculture, as well as education and culture, were subjected to party control and direction. Even the Protestant church was infiltrated by National Socialist doctrines. Special legislation excluded Jews from the protection of German law." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560927_3/National_Socialism.html (Page 3) In fact, tread the entire article to see that while nominal OWNERSHIP appeared to be non-governmental, the regulations and controls of the government effectively made them an extension of the government. quote: ORIGINAL: rlj quote: Communism, FASCISM and NAZISM all share a common heritage, socialism. Each of these movements declared that the well being of the people could only be achieved by socialist ideals and regulating industry to the point where it could not function freely. So, Mussolini nationalized the railroads and the trains ran on time.. for a while. Actually business was privately owned in Nazi Germany as opposed to publicly owned such as in the Soviet Union. This is why for example that private German Companies have to deal with backlash from some of their wartime activities. The government's involvement in the companies was mainly to provide them with slave labor. While there was a socialistic side to the Nazi's this was strangled out and Hitler would have none of it.

TMeeks -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 10:14:43 PM)
OK bright one. See if you can be more specific. And give us a BRILLIANT critique. Simply labeling something as poor isn't good enough from someone that has demonstrated a definite socialist idealogical frame of reference. If you can't back up your criticism then we'll just write it off as simply your being an Obama fanboy. Where did I go wrong? quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Given the poor historical analysis at the start of the thread, what does that say about the people furiously nodding at it?

TMeeks -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 10:36:16 PM)
How technically 'owned' the business is a moot point, since business was completely controlled by the government in EVERY aspect of its operation. Nazism was clearly a COLLECTIVISM system whereby EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY was sub-servant to the state. You see, we tend to see the philosophies called "Nazism" and "Communism" as left and right endpoints on a horizontal line. THAT IS A FALSE AND DECEPTIVE VISUALIZATION. The REAL way to visualize these two government philosophies is on a Freedom/Totalitarian wheel. If you located COMPLETE FREEDOM at Zero degrees and COLLECTIVISM/TOTALITARIANISM at 180 degrees, then NAZISM might be at 179 degrees and Communisim might be at 181 degrees. The people of the United States have been slowly been sliding from the ZERO DEGREE mark as more and more we've accepted collectivism in incremental steps. The most glaring example of this is Social Security and Medicare. We ALL know that both are in deep trouble down the road; but, we stick our heads in the sand and look away from the innevitable... collapse of SS and rationing of care for Medicare. The algorythms and software is already in place that could be used as the rationale for withholding care from elderly and seriously ill patients by government policy. I know because in the 1990's I wrote the software for the first study that was the model for it. If you do not believe me, look here and go to page 6. It will be interesting to see the differences in how it is described in the first link to that of the second link that was much earlier. The clamor for nationalized health care fails to think far enough down the road to realistically understand the NEGATIVE realities of collectivism, where individuals must give up even their right to exist for the group. Since I know what is going on, I'm not so naive. quote: ORIGINAL: litfire2000 much of what you say is true...Nazi is compound of two German words National Socialiste (sp)...or National Socialist ...Hitler did believe in government control of everything, but not necessarily ownership...the slave labor was paid labor but, the company did not pay the laborer, it paid the government

TMeeks -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 10:55:26 PM)
Uh... This I have to hear. Just how is China is a shining example of Communism working for the people? What part of "Cheap Labor" do you not understand. I fail to see how a system where the people earn pennies for making shoes that sell to Americans for $200 can be called a success. [8\|] It's not a "Red Scare", my friend. It is a COLLECTIVISM reality. It is Obama's underlying philosophical viewpoint and will direct everything he does as president, if elected. Unlike Bill Ayers, who admits that he was a "communist with a small 'c'", many of you that are up to your necks in socialism fool yourselves into thinking that you are 'moderates'. And, you have been taught to laugh at notions like 'communists' or 'socialists' as non-existent. But, I can assure you that my experience in the 1960's and 1970's has proven to me that they are very real and that they have longed for the day they could dominate the United States political system. You cannot have government collectivism without moving away from freedom. They simply are diametrically apposed realities. That is why, for instance, companies will be FORCED to provide health care of the government's choosing... by way of mandates and regulations. That is a loss of freedom, no matter how you look at it. With a 'National Health Care' plan, we will lose the freedom, at some point, to chose our own doctors, as the system evolves. Doctors who participate in Medicare already loose their right to choose certain types of care for non-medicare patients. They no longer have the FREEDOM to treat individual patients according to the needs and financial abilities of the patient. (Some may be able to afford more precise testing, etc.) I wish this election was about Collectivism vs. Freedom. But, it isn't. McCain, however, is less likely to swing us wildly into the collectivism pit. Obama will drive us there with every fiber in his body. quote: ORIGINAL: todd_t quote: Obama believes in communism and it didn't work in the past, it won't work now. For the most part, China is probably the exception to communism working on a large scale - even though they are heavily capitalist as well. As for Obama being a closet communist, give me a break. That Red Scare garbage played itself out of town years and years ago.

ekserekseez -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 10:59:46 PM)
Whatever. All I know is, I'm sick of people who want to buy stuff with my money. I'm sick of people who want to invest badly and get bailed out with my money. I'm sick of people who want to buy things they can't afford, go bankrupt, and pay their creditors back ten cents on the dollar with my money. I'm sick of people who want to have children they can't afford and raise them with my money. I'm sick of people who want to spend my money. So I still haven't decided who to vote for. Ron Paul and Bob Barr are both looking better and better!

TMeeks -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/20/2008 11:07:16 PM)
This is a great observation. The United States has been successful because there has been a national culture that is unique. When I was in school it was called the "Melting Pot", where people from around the world came to the United States with the idea of becoming 'Americans'. That has not been true for the last 20-30 years. I remember when 'Multiculturalism' became THE hot topic in educational circles around 1981-1982. I was working with a research study at the University of Maryland at the time that studied the use of computers with very young children. I was told that this was going to be THE big thing in education. And, as we all know, that prediction became a reality. The result, unfortunately, has been more pot and less melting. [:o] quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 If you study history, you find that nations really do have a national "personality" - I think that's why communism seems to "work" (in a way) in China. And the Russians have their own unique personality. I had a Russian Studies professor in college who was convinced back in about 1991 that Russia would have another czar within five years. That didn't really happen - but their version of "democracy" is unique, to say the least. They still submit to the corrupt thugs in charge as if to royalty in a way that is incomprensible to us in the US. My concern is that I see the "personality" of the US being lost. The value of the American worker that McCain has been talking about, I fear, is really a thing of the past. I see the determination and drive and "grit" that has gotten this country to this point as a thing of the past or at least something of the minority now. I am really afraid where this road we're on will take us. People that say Obama is not heading us down a road toward Socialism don't understand that, while he may not look exactly like Stalin or Marx, it is an American Version of Socialism - a subtle version that, I fear, could be more insidious.

rlj -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/21/2008 7:19:59 AM)
quote: From 1933 to 1935 the democratic structure of Germany was replaced with a completely centralized state. The autonomy previously exercised in many matters by the provincial governments was eliminated, and these subnational governments were transformed into strictly controlled instruments of the central government. The Reichstag retained only a ceremonial, not a legislative, function. By a process of coordination (Gleichschaltung), all private organizations of business, labor, and agriculture, as well as education and culture, were subjected to party control and direction. Even the Protestant church was infiltrated by National Socialist doctrines. Special legislation excluded Jews from the protection of German law." 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 IG Farben was privately owned and ran. Krupp remained in the Krupp family. Dornier wasn't owned by the party. Focke-Wulf was independant. I could go on and on but why when IG Farben and Krupp two of the biggest and most important companies in the country at the time weren't party owned and controlled. It makes everything else seems rather redundant. Where the party had its stranglehold on the factories was with the labor. There wasn't enough labor to run the factories so they were forced to contract the labor through the party. I'm sure this system is familiar with you for example when Krupp needed 2000 workers for a factory they were expected to work the slaves to death and the SS would continously replace the dead workers so that it would fulfull its contractual obligations to the factories while making sure that the workers received their death sentence- at least in the case of those who were supposed to be terminated like the Jews. 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 And this: 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

SonInMe1 -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/21/2008 10:21:34 AM)
If socilaism rears its ugly head in america, more than it is now, it won't be the democrats fault... it will be the fault of the increasingly liberal ( moderate ) supposedly conservative party, the republicans. Conservatism is on its deathbed with conservative in name only republican presidents. There are two things we need for our country to avoid socialism Individual responsibility. Leadership. We are sorely lacking in both.

davemiller7 -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/21/2008 10:36:56 AM)
Thank you, TMeeks. This message needs to be brought to the people over and over. The dumbing down of America has reached the point that the truth is seen as radical propaganda and the tripe spewed out by the left and their media lapdogs is seen as truth.

huangshan -> RE: The sweet allure of Armchair Socialism (9/21/2008 10:42:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: todd_t For the most part, China is probably the exception to communism working on a large scale - even though they are heavily capitalist as well. quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 If you study history, you find that nations really do have a national "personality" - I think that's why communism seems to "work" (in a way) in China. And the Russians have their own unique personality. I had a Russian Studies professor in college who was convinced back in about 1991 that Russia would have another czar within five years. That didn't really happen - but their version of "democracy" is unique, to say the least. They still submit to the corrupt thugs in charge as if to royalty in a way that is incomprehensible to us in the US. You people both fail, and so do the people who subscribe to your newsletters. Communism never "worked" in China. Communism has never "worked" anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. There has never even been a communist state. There have been states run by Communist parties, but these are "Communist" in name only, as their supposed purpose is to socialize everything in sight and then turn everything into the communist utopia that (supposedly) follows. This second bit has never happened. There has never been a communist state, and there has never been a communism that works. Communism is a sick dream of those lost in the thralls of Marxist dogmatism. It's a fantasy completely divorced from reality, and it has never worked. China has been socialist to varying degrees for a long time. As of the past thirty years, it has been becoming less socialist in certain aspects. It's still run by the Communist party, but... don't make me go into that again. quote: ORIGINAL: Dancre Poor historical analysis??? What??? Now folks are rewriting history?? Sorry, Huang, but that stuff really happened. There are documents out there to prove it. Socialism, communism and Nazism doesn't work. Obama believes in communism and it didn't work in the past, it won't work now. quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Given the poor historical analysis at the start of the thread, what does that say about the people furiously nodding at it? First, no, Obama doesn't "believe in communism". That's a lie. Second, in what capacity does socialism "not work"? The United States, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Israel, the U.K., China, Japan all are socialist to varying degrees. They largely seem to be working out, and, present brink-of-the-abyss meltdown situation aside (I think it's a mess, but we'll get over it eventually), they don't seem to be circling the drain in any serious way. Extreme, Stalinist/Maoist/Kim-Il-Sungist totalitarianist socialism obviously doesn't work so well, but that just proves that you can overdo it, especially when you combine it with a xenophobic cult of personality and eschew all vestiges of capitalism. It think there's a reasonable fear of a Lord-of-the-Flies-type situation if you go too far over the other end, eschewing all forms of regulation, law, and government. quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 My concern is that I see the "personality" of the US being lost. The value of the American worker that McCain has been talking about, I fear, is really a thing of the past. I see the determination and drive and "grit" that has gotten this country to this point as a thing of the past or at least something of the minority now. I am really afraid where this road we're on will take us. 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.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI