1933 redux

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Not really actually. Communism wasn't designed to break the people, fascism was. However, communism has never been implemented properly, nor will it ever. It's a utopia. -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Stan Shannon

peterchen wrote: The concept of freedom as "no interference I don't like" is the very heart of a communist Kommune. Unless you go to the woods, someone, somehow, will always interfere with your life. And if it's not someone, it's something - may it be a hungry bear, or a hailstorm devasting your crops. But I do not cuncur with that definition of freedom, I'm not a libetarian. I fully believe that society has the right to interfer with how I conduct my life. That is, standards and rules of conduct are essential for a civil social order. However, in the context of American federalism, that civil order has tradtionally been understood to come from the bottom up, local government, etc, not from the top down, federal government. Freedom means the same thing as personal responsibility. To be free means to be willing to take personal responsibility for your own welfare to the greatest extent practically possible. Anyone who is not willing to take such resonsibility can never be free. This does not mean you are a law unto yourself, but it does mean that the degree to which government assumes those responsibilities should be kept to a strict, well defined, constitutioanlly protected, minimum. Such a definition of freedom is entirely dependent upon free market capitalism. Only in a free market do I have the power as an individual to avail myself of those resources I need to conduct my life in my own free way. I don't need the government prividing for me, I simply need the government to leave sufficient resources circulating freely in the economy so that I can take (and produce) as much as I am capable or willing to do. peterchen wrote: You can't put "all -isms except democratic capital-" into one pot. 1. This binary view is dangerous, for it creates an "us vs. them" scenario that is a building block of the most evil -isms. 2. neither a representative democracy, nor capitalism have outstanding features that justify this separation. 3. it is too simplistic to model the issues at hand (although I know a black/white world is easier to live in - and I'd prefer to live in one, too). I am feeling increasingly all the time that we are in an "us vs. them" scenario. Political systems by their very nature desire control. They are like living entities which survive by acquiring ever greater control over the masses. I beleive that the various political entities of this planet, including my own, feel increasingly threatened by the central prin

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Oh please. X| Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Generalisations like that are dangerous. There's a huge difference between fascism, socialism and the rest. Would you classify the UK as a fascist state because we have legislation in place to care for people who can't care for themselves? Or because we provide free healthcare to those who need it? Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

peterchen

I can go very well with your description of freedom*, but not up to the point making capitalism a requirement. I've seen people that, under "left wing fascism" have been more free than I will ever be under capitalism. Capitalism's emphasis on economy is economically successful, but other aspects of the human existance are neglected. us vs. them: I feel, similary, pushed into an us-vs-them-world. But that kept socialism working, providing an enemy is basic part of every manipulaiton - so I'm utterly suspicous of it. And I see an "us-vs-them" strongest with the people I clash most here on CP ;) You are right, every system of welfare will create more "needy" than necessary. But the ultimate of capitalism would be denying your mother a cup of water when she can't get up - we need to find a balance and have to accept the additional level of "need" we create. I guess your distrust is based on large origanizations providing a depersonalized welfare. (This is, I think, a much bigger problem in germany - the idea that the state alone is responsible for it stifles a lot of "private" initiative) The last point is an interesting thought experiment - if the US states were to become independent, and the federal part simply "federalectomied", what would happen to the US? My first reaction would be: their united power would "decay" quickly. But I also see another side. The US people I met feature (in general :rolleyes: ) an "being all-american" value and much less individualism than what is very common in Europe. I don't know much about the US federal structure, but AFAIK there are only very few exceptions where it actually matters in which state you open your business, and that it's right now impossible to save Texan jobs by putting a tax on Californian kilowatts. This is what IMO goves the US huge economic power as a whole (and I think many of the federal things you dislike is the price you pay for it).

*) I have to say: aspects of it get very close to the socialist discussion of "obligations arise from rights" and "Freiheit ist Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit" ("Freedom is understanding/insight in the indispensability/neccessities/requirements" is the best translation I can offer). I'm not saying it to tease you, but to show that maybe it's not always "us vs. them", but there are also shades of gray.

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world

Ed Gadziemski

Communism would be great if it weren't humans trying to implement it. Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: the fact remains that the majority of the pro-war members of GWB's posse have never served a day in the army That I gotta take exception with..... Where do you get the impression that most people who consider themelves conservative have never served or avoided service? Chris Losinger wrote: Clinton's non-service when he dared use his commander-in-chief powers The problem most of us who served had with Clinton was his statement that he loathed the military. That and the fact that because of his election he was the Commander-in-Chief really sticks in the craw of anyone who did serve. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Stan Shannon

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: Generalisations like that are dangerous. There's a huge difference between fascism, socialism and the rest. I don't know why my personal generalizations would be so dangerous. There may be a huge difference given technical definitions from political science, but I remain convinced that all such system will degrade into the same basic state. There is nothing more dangerous than a government which has a large mass of people dependent upon it for their welfare. Sooner or later any such system will evolve into what NAZI Germany, or Stalinist Russia were unless influenced by more powerful external forces. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: Would you classify the UK as a fascist state because we have legislation in place to care for people who can't care for themselves? Or because we provide free healthcare to those who need it? Depends on how precise a definition of fascist you wish to apply. But I will say that I believe that it greatly increases the probability that you will someday be that, especially if the US decides to stay on that same path. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: Where do you get the impression that most people who consider themelves conservative have never served or avoided service? you should really re-read what i wrote. i didn't say anything about "most people who consider themselves conservative". i said "GWB's posse" meaning his cabinet and advisors, which includes GWB himself, as well as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft, Thompson, DeLay, Lott etc. and in the supporting cast: Kristol, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Will and Coulter. none of them served - yet they are the most eager to send troops off to Iraq. yes, i think military service should be required of the president - or at least the VP. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Stan Shannon

peterchen wrote: I can go very well with your description of freedom*, but not up to the point making capitalism a requirement. I've seen people that, under "left wing fascism" have been more free than I will ever be under capitalism. Capitalism's emphasis on economy is economically successful, but other aspects of the human existance are neglected. To my mind that is the real empasse. As an American, I find it difficult to imagine what important aspects of human existance I could not secure for myself given sufficient freedom. peterchen wrote: But the ultimate of capitalism would be denying your mother a cup of water when she can't get up - we need to find a balance and have to accept the additional level of "need" we create. That's undoubtedly true, but that is why such a system needs to encourage a grass roots moral sentiment towards charity. Fundamentally, that is what was so important hisotorically with the US considering itself a "christian" nation. The truth is that it provided a very effective safety net for the needy throughout most of our history. If you separate such a system from any since of moral obligation for the needy, which the federal government has effectively done, than yes, you have big problems which the government itself must step into resolve. Which is what makes me so suspicious of arguments involving separation of church and state - mostly they are arguments used by the state to facilitate a greater dependency upon it. peterchen wrote: The last point is an interesting thought experiment - if the US states were to become independent, and the federal part simply "federalectomied", what would happen to the US? No one I know is in favor of the states being independent nations. But our system functioned quite well for a very long time with the states enjoying a far greater level of independence from the federal government than they enjoy today. peterchen wrote: The US people I met feature (in general ) an "being all-american" value and much less individualism than what is very common in Europe. I don't know much about the US federal structure, but AFAIK there are only very few exceptions where it actually matters in which state you open your business, and that it's right now impossible to save Texan jobs by putting a tax on Californian kilowatts. This is what IMO goves the US huge economic power as a whole (and I think many of the federal things y

Roger Wright

Chris Losinger wrote: . no side is clean on this I quite agree! Rather than seizing the opportunity to reverse the usurpation of individual rights the liberals have promoted for several decades, the Republicans seem to have taken up the banner for their predecessors and taken the concept to new lows. Perhaps the Libertarian Party will finally have a chance in the backlash (hope springs eternal...). If not, we do have some small experience with revolution, albeit not recently. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

peterchen

Just to see that we are not that far apart in at least some fundamental views, is worth to all the "futile" discussions here. (And maybe it convinces you that I'm neither "us" nor "them ;) ) There are so many things to be said against capitalism - but I'll leave that for another time. Right now Germany is struggling to reform it's social system -because it will "reform itself" in an very ugly way if it's done to late. From what I know, the US is still far from this point, although the recession moved it a bit closer. You are not "homogenous" - but homogenity (to me it seems) is more of a value in the US than in Europe. Don't forget that europeans are very curious about other countries, and many of them spend half a year at a US high school, or as au pair living with a US family. We know a bit about you ;) The stereotypes surface only in times of dissent, where we look for reasons why "you" behave the way "you" behave. Good luck with your American dream - may it be fruitful, but may it remain where it belongs.

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen