It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 06:47 AM
Ok, i want to make sure you understand everything about belgium:

-we are not communists
-our army is more effective than US army
-yeah,we are socialists, and its better, you dont have to worry about your food if you sick or something
-everybody has a health insurance in belgium, they pay us back if we need surgery or medecins
-the benelux are the founders of the NATO
-USA goes in other countries (like iraq) and messes them up, full with missiles and leave it destroyed
-what did i heard yesterday?yes, USA needs support from the UN,because they cant handle the situation in iraq. who is crying now for help?

posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 11:31 PM
As I drink my Polish Lusksoswa wodka in front of this computer, I think of my country of Poland slowly dieing under the capitalist rule...

First lets look at the United States, my current residence. I was born in the U.S. from Polish immigrant parents. I could not even speak a word of English until age 6(Polish only). I was brought up the way my parents were brought up... nothing like the American way. I have a chance to see the difference between Polish and American people. My parents moved here to create a better life for me and my siblings. But is it really better?

In America, everything is money. In America, you can buy anything you want if you have enough money... the morals of the American people are dead! So many familes with divorced parents... so many unhappy children. I can see the lack of morals with my own eyes. Everyday that passes at school, I feel more and more alienated from my country of birth. Everyday, I wake up and see unhappy people. People who work for more and more money...

Is money really happiness? Many of you say you are happy, but are you really? Families almost no longer exist, people only care about themselves and their money! What good is your money if you cannot share it with the people you love?

I for one, cannot work JUST for money. I have to work for something that I believe will benefit others and give me personal satisfaction that I am making a difference.

How can you love if you are always forced to compete against each other for material possesions, even the right to live!!?!?!

In Polska, the people are already starting to Westernize and become more indivudalistic. Morals are dieing, and capitalism + greed is on the rise...

BTW, My Russian+Soviet freinds say that their lives in the Republics were much better under the Soviet Union than when they broke away. As soon as they broke away, most of them moved away because things went downhill.

Another thing, why does every country have to be like the U.S.? Why does Poland have to become a money country like the U.S.? Money is not everything... why must my culture die? Why must our morals die? Why, for what? Money? Power? Please someone tell me...

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 12:35 AM
No one is saying that your culture must die. You have not attacked us, so you got nothing to worry.

BTW Belgium is not a true socialist country, not really. You might have some socialist ideas, among others, but you are not a socialist country, at least not yet. Belgium is a constitutional monarchy, unless it has changed from October 2003.

At least that's what this link says.

"Domestic policy

(Last updated in October 2003)

Federal state
The language dispute
The May 2003 elections
Institutional renewal


Belgium is a constitutional monarchy. Legislative authority is shared by the King and the Parliament, executive authority by the King and the Government. Measures initiated by the King must be countersigned by the ministers. Albert II has been Belgian head of state since 1993.

Federal state

The federalization process led to a number of constitutional amendments with a new constitution entering into force on 17 February 1994. Belgium became a federal state.

The regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels) were given their own parliaments (councils) and governments and responsibility in financial and tax affairs. Their councils received legislative powers. They are directly elected for five years, elections taking place at the same time as those to the European Parliament. The premiers and ministers are elected by the councils and are accountable to them.
One result of the 1999 elections was that, for the first time in nearly the entire post-War era, the Christian Democrats were not represented in the government. The newly-formed "rainbow coalition" of Liberals, Socialists and Greens was considered both unorthodox and a sign of Belgium's new will to reform. This was particularly the case with regard to its very open manner of dealing with public opinion and its efforts to put into practice new forms of direct democracy. When the rainbow coalition came into office, it discovered there was a considerable need for reforms and at first made a vigorous effort to implement them. However during the course of the legislative period it became ever more apparent that the six coalition parties no longer had much common ground; a slowdown in economic development also required budget cuts. In the end, a relatively minor issue caused the Green party, which already held divergent views, to leave the coalition shortly before the elections on 18 May 2003. The election campaign was then primarily dominated by the traditional "blue" and "red" parties' efforts to point out ways in which they differ from the "greens". In the end, Belgians voted by a large majority to re-elect the Liberals and Socialists to another term. Despite this clear vote, coalition negotiations proved to be difficult - in particular due to the lack of a third party that could act as a buffer or moderator - and were only successfully concluded after eight weeks. On 15 July 2003, Parliament voted in favour of the "Verhofstadt 2" government."

Excerpts taken from.

It seems that you are having a lot of economic problems after you chose the "rainbow coalition" of Liberals, socialists and greens. But it says you are trying to have a direct democracy. That does not sound socialist, but getting closer...

I was born and raised til the age of 7 in a country that began as "socialist" and ended up communist. I went to visit Cuba in 2001, i have seen what true socialism/communism does, and it sucks. The people have nothing to eat if their relatives living outside the country don't send money to them. The most food that the government gives last about a week or so, and its supposed to last them for a month.

Venezuela is going through the same process as Cuba did, Spain has also become socialist, and I didn't know much about Belgium, but it seems you are headed the same way. You guys decided not to represent the Christian Democratic party, since then you seem to have more economic problems than before.

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 03:06 AM
For those of you living outside of the United States, who realize that people are more important than money, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. I know it seems like all Americans are infected with the "Greed Virus", but some of us have managed to keep our souls.

Socialism is not a precursor to Communism. They are two different concepts, but with the common good of the people as the foundation, rather than "every man for himself". Personally, I prefer the communistic ideal, as it does not place the power in the hands of the state. I would love it if everyone willingly worked for the good of the whole, rather than just for themselves, irregardless of the whole. I don't, however, believe that it should be up to the government to play Robin Hood, because the people won't do it on their own. When generosity must be enforced by the government, it usually causes resentment and/or dependence to fester among those who don't share the same ideals/ethics. It also puts the lives of the governed into the hands of the governing, which runs a high risk of corruption.

On the flip side though, it is evident that if people are not forced to care for the less fortunate, most of them won't. That makes socialism the only realistic formula for a "humanistic" (as it is defined by the dictionary, not by Christians) society, since Communism requires the voluntary participation and a genuine sense of responsibility by every individual to work for the common good of the whole. It cannot work if people only seek personal power or wealth, so it cannot really be successful on a large scale in our present world. Whenever anyone has tried, someone has taken advantage and turned it into a dictatorship instead.

There are bad examples of every single form of society that has been tried, even when things started out right. Our own representative republic has deteriorated beyond recognition. The US is no longer run by the people, for the people. Now it is run by the rich, for the money and power, and screw the people. Unfortunately, most staunchly Capitalistic people have been seduced by the belief that greed is good & the only way to be happy and at peace with themselves is to be the one with the most property, money, and power. They are so entrenched in this lie, that they cannot even comprehend, let alone accept, that happiness and peace does not come from having more than other people, but from being able to share both the good and the bad things in life with each other.

I expect to catch hell for this post by some people, but eventually they have got to realize that Capitalism supported by greed and materialism, is no better for mankind then socialistic or communistic dictatorships, they are just slaves to different masters.

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 04:09 AM

Originally posted by FreeMason
Think about it this way, if the government said there was mandatory enlistment in the army at age 18 for everyone, women too, and that anyone who didn't comply would NOT get social services, how many of YOU would complain?

Probably none, you'd all go march off like robots.

You didn't think that argument would stand? Didja? We have something similar...selective service...don't you think that kind of parallels the point you made? Oh, but we Americans don't HAVE to serve, yet. How many of us complain about it?

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 04:11 AM
with socialism

with liberals

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 07:55 AM
Communisn and socialism are great....

..if you happen to be in the 1 % at the top. The other 99 % just need to know their role.

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:06 AM

Originally posted by echelon

Originally posted by f16falcon
ok if i'm not mistaken communism is socialism to an extreme

socialism is only a transitional gov't from capitalism to communism.
communism is a more democratic form of socialism.
if you limit the people to only a socialist gov't, they will never experience true liberation. the systems must evolve continuously... this is why it's called 'the permanent revolution'

Originally posted by f16falcon
but don't socialists believe in small militaries and peace not war?

they absolutely do.
but they have to protect themselves from the 'interests' of the capitalists.
and socialism/communism works when it's globalized, so when the capitalists are completely removed, then they can properly apply their beliefs... such as 'make love, not war'... hehe

not all socialists are communists... but all communists are socialists.

read more about socialism's relations with communism at...
and a FAQ on communism...

it's good to see people taking more interest in these issues.

Sure, commy/socialist countries have to have large militaries to protect themselves from the big, bad, evil free nations, and also so they can use the military to engulf neighboring weaker countries!

As far as a FAQ on communism, who needs it? Oh, wait, I forgot that times marches on and many here are young and don't recall the global peril brought upon us by a peace-loving commie-empire.

Remember Major Nichols

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 12:36 PM
Humans work best and are most productive when they know that the work will benefit themselves.

"From each according to his gifts, to each according to his needs" Isn't this the motto of Socialism? This type of thinking does not account for the competitive human nature. Suppose my "gifts" are many but my "needs" are few. This means in very simple terms that I am giving more than I'm getting and under such a system, that will never change. There is no incentive for me to do more than the minimum required to meet my obligations to the state.

This is also a problem with state owned property as opposed to private property ownership. If it's my land, I have every reason to take care of it and make sure it's productive. If it's the state's land, then to me as a citizen, for all practical purposes, it is then either everyone's land or no one's land. In either case there is not as much incentive for me to take care of the land because it's not mine, I have no say as to what happens to it and am not responsible for it. This thought excercise can be applied to almost any part of a nation's infrastructure if it's controled by the state instead of by private owners.

The bottom line is that Socialism is fine for those on the low end of the functional human bell curve. These are the people who are content to be a cog in the big machine, doing no more or less than what is required. For those on the high end of the bell curve, the system does not recognize or reward merit in a way that encourages increased performance or production. These people are the creative ones, the thinkers, and the dreamers. Their contributions cannot be scheduled or coerced. The state is usually too slow and cumbersome to be able to take advantage of these contributions so their gifts are wasted or used improperly.

You cannot increase your status, financially or socially through your own efforts, and this is the true failing of the Socialist system. It grinds everyone down to the same level of the barely adaquate.

No one works as hard or as well as when they are working for their own gain. Deny this if you will but it is human nature and we have a lot of evolving to do before we get past it, if we ever do. Any political system that does not take competetive human nature into account will fail.

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 03:26 PM
Definition of Socialism:

1.) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2.) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Now number 1 is alot different from number two. I think most of the people hear have a twisted view of socialism and see it as something more akin to number two.

SOCIALISM IS STILL CAPITALISM. Socalism is not communism. There's still private ownership, property, etc., but the government has the ability to regulate national industries more than in a non-socialist country. People still have the ability to work for their own gain and become wealthy.

Someone was listing so called socialist countries earlier like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Laos, etc. Those aren't socialist countries. Those are COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIPS. If you wanted to list countries with socialist policies you would have listed places like Canada, Belgium, Spain, and Greece.

None of those countries are the evil empires you people associate with socialism, are they? Their economies and societies haven't been destroyed by socialsim either, have they?

Granted socialism seems to work better in countries with a smaller more homogeneous population. But, it's just an economic policy not some evil system of oppressing the masses. Get a clue.

Do some research before you call socialsim the same as communism.

I know this will just be ignored, but I figured it's worth a try...

[Edited on 4/9/2004 by Flinx]

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 03:31 PM
Ambient Sound, you're right.

The problem is that what you're talking about is communism. Replace socialism with communism and you've got a point.

See my post above.

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 03:37 PM
Well, us stupid Americans think of them as one and the same.
Maybe that's because all these Communist Dictatorships mentioned above tried to maquerade as Socialist States.

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Well, us stupid Americans think of them as one and the same.
Maybe that's because all these Communist Dictatorships mentioned above tried to maquerade as Socialist States.

True. Dictatorships always try to masquerade as something else. What is North Korea's official name? Something like the Democratic Republic of Korea? Also the NAZI stood for the National Socialist Party or something like that. North Korea is anything but democratic and the Nazis were anything but socialist!!

There should be more honesty in government! Places like NK should rename themselves according to what they really are. The Dictatorial Starving Hellhole of North Korea, or Crazy Midget Elvis Land.

[Edited on 4/9/2004 by Flinx]

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 03:50 PM
As you say it may work better in smaller societies with more homogeneous populations, but that isn't the case with any country big enough to be considered a world power and certainly not a with a world govenment.

In any case, no matter what the political system actually is, it has to have the illusion of competition.

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 09:08 AM

If you wanted to list countries with socialist policies you would have listed places like Canada, Belgium, Spain, and Greece.

First, who in the world told you that Canada is socialist?

"The Parliament of Canada

Canada is a democracy and has a system of parliamentary government. Parliament has three parts: the Queen, the House of Commons and the Senate.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is our Head of State. The Governor General of Canada is the Queen's representative in Canada. Canadians elect representatives to the House of Commons. The elected representatives are called Members of Parliament (or MPs). The people who serve in the Senate are chosen by the Prime Minister and appointed by the Governor General. They are called Senators.

The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party with the most elected members of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons."

Excerpt taken from.

Muaddib----I already proved in another thread that Belgium is not trully a socialist country either.

"Belgium is a constitutional monarchy. Legislative authority is shared by the King and the Parliament, executive authority by the King and the Government. Measures initiated by the King must be countersigned by the ministers. Albert II has been Belgian head of state since 1993."

Excerpt taken from.

Muaddib---- Greece is a "parliamentary republic; monarchy rejected by referendum 8 December 1974 "

"Greece achieved its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1829. During the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, it gradually added neighboring islands and territories, most with Greek-speaking populations. Following the defeat of Communist rebels in 1949, Greece joined NATO in 1952. A military dictatorship, which in 1967 suspended many political liberties and forced the king to flee the country, lasted seven years. Democratic elections in 1974 and a referendum created a parliamentary republic and abolished the monarchy; Greece joined the European Community or EC in 1981"
Excerpt taken from.

That's a CIA site, so you might jump at this, here is another site.

"ATHENS : Greek conservative leader Costas Karamanlis began piecing together a new government after his party won elections that ended a decade of Socialist rule as the country prepares for the Olympics and negotiates with Turkey on reunifying Cyprus."

Excerpt taken from.

The above countries might have some socialist ideas, because some of them have socialist and democratic parties which have a say in the government, but they are not really socialist countries.

The only true socialist country in your list is Spain, and they have just started in this new form of government. If the spaniards come to senses they will go back to their "partido popular."

The only reason why they voted for the socialist party is because they were scared #less.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Muaddib]

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 04:55 PM

I never said those countries were socialist. I said they had socialist policies...alot of socialist policies. Spain is not "a true socialist nation" just because they voted in the Socialist party. That just means they have the majority in government right now. It's not like they're voting in an entirely new system of goverment.

Greece is controlled by the conservative party, but the socialists are still there. They just don't have the majority in government. The country's policies are still in place....someone socialist parties. Heh, and they still hate Americans just as much (I have personal experience in this :@@

But most western countries have socialist parties. They have communist parties, moderate parties, and ultra-conservative parties. So....unlike our system of two monolithic "parties", most countries have a large range of viewpoints participating in their government. Having a socialist party in government doesn't make the nation socialst, having a communist party doesn't make the nation communist, having a conservative party doesn't make the nation conservative.

Um, this is a bit off-topic, but I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that the Conservative parties in European nations would be considered liberal or moderate in the US.

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:44 PM
Hey, TC!

I guess you could as easily say that peril was brought upon us by the US and it still is. After all, these days the US doesn't seem so peace-loving, does it? And it takes two to tango...

Actually, the reason for speaking here is to clarify the theory of marxism. Marxism isn't a political ideology, albeit it has some political consequences. Rather it is a view that considers society as an entiy with evolutionary properties. In marxist theory there are evolutionary stages for society where different ways of governing take place, all according to which class currently has the upper hand.

Classes are defined as those who own the means of production and those who don't. These two are constantly fighting each other due to the fact that they want the same thing...wealth.

These ongoing struggles will eventually lead to a society where everyone owns everything, or no-one owns anything, because this is the only situation where the struggle can end. Plain logic, right?

Now, Lenin, among others, figured that since this process is inevitable we might speed things up a bit by helping evolution on its way. The problem is that when you deliberately help evolution, it's not evolution anymore. Hence, the people weren't ready and things got out of hand.

The only true way of creating this seemingly utopian vision is by letting history have its way. There is no way this can happen without the consent of each and every person. Because without consent the system needs oppression to maintain order.

posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 11:19 AM
No, Yergen, one may not easily say that, or at least cannot make it true. We were not the cause of the Soviet threat to the world, unless you would like to consider the fact that Patton was not allowed to rearm the Germans and with their assistance, go and kick the crap out of the Soviet threat when we had the chance.

There has never been a case of any decent society coming about from any Leninist/Marxist notion that I am aware. There are some nations that have been mentioned that have moved past the industrial level and on into post-industrial and Service economies that have evolved into social cultures, but I don't find their tax structure and level acceptable. Such a move in this nation would obviously kill incentive and personal motivation, a couple of the very things that made us a powerhouse. We are sliding into the socialized concept and to deny that we have socialistic tendancies is to turn a blind eye to the facts. Still, I have no desire for our nation to go any fartehr in that direction. Rather, I'd have us regain the strong, rugged individualistic characteristics that will make us strong again, both as a nation as well as individuals.

posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 11:23 AM
Well said TC, i couldn't agree any more.

posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:30 AM
Who brought peril upon us during the Cuba crisis? From your perspective I guess it's easy to say the Soviets did, but from any other perspective that chicken race nearly got us all killed. All because neither side wanted to give up.

Moreover, claiming that the US is going socialistic is just preposterous. Socialism is about distributing the means of production and if you look at who owns the companies, ownership is increasingly concentrated into the hands of a few people. 1% of the people own 50% of the outstanding stocks. Socialism? I think not.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in