Why many Republicans hate Europe and lie about the situation there?

Aspects of "socialism" in current (post-"communist") European country named Czech Republic:

sellout of land and water sources to global corporations
corruption
declining living standards (do not believe official statistics - inflation is much higher if you count quality of goods in basket)
corruption
exponentially widening social gap
stupidity + corruption
mainstream media full of propaganda (in this aspect there is no real change from pre 1989 period)
corruption
instead of licking Kremlins asses we are licking asses in Washington
corruption (Raytheon for example)
quality of education is declining
plain stupidity (if not some evil conspiracy)
good health care starts to be available only for rich (especially dentists, but they are just a flagship of neoliberal direction in healthcare here)
corruption
homelessness rising exponentially
[combined effects of previous]
Catholic church (not believers but Church) gaining power (money + land) again
corruption
public space is privatized (stupid advertisement is everywhere for example - that is especially idiotic in historic city centers)
corruption
while some forms of environmental pollution were stopped, other forms are on rise (especially via agriculture)
stupidity + corruption
20 years ago we were in many respects self sufficient country ... not any more
stupidity + corruption

Well, official dogma here is free market/liberal democracy. Even for Social democratic party (they really DO NOT PROMOTE socialism in any conservative meaning of this word, they are similar to UK Labour party but more corrupted). Right wing (have government for 7 years now) can be compared to right wing in Italy - they promote "socialism" for rich, especially banks and global investors. Obscurity in financing (corruption) is what they care about.
Summary:
In Czech republic is no socialism, welfare state is in decline, economy is in decline, corruption and other (especially institutionalized) forms of crime are on rise.
Thank God we are not part of Euro zone.

If you want to find some socialism in Europe, look here - it is purely non-governmental
www.independent.co.uk...

reply to post by ANOK


The state acts AS PROXY for the workers. The workers being all citizens of a nation. Its really that simple.

Once again you are trying to make the case for state capitalism and that is typical with social libertarians or anarchists.

Look up the definition of government and what it is SUPPOSED to do. There is no such thing as a "stateless and classless society" outside of anarchism.

Yes anarchism is part of marxism but it is so extreme it becomes completly dellusional!

Nationalising the resources is what creates both socialism and communism. Socialism is a mixed economy and communism is a full public economy.

Forget anarchy. It is a pipe dream. I can't believe people star your nonsense!

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
European markets down as France slips into recession

Markets are down across Europe

Please do tell us more about how great things are in Europe.

Which started with US dragging us into a economical crisis...

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

That philosophy doesn't seem to be working too well for a lot of Americans.

Well republicans would say it hasn't been given a chance. Note that I said our government is BIG and this is where the whole philosophy of individual empowerment in the US hits a wall. Republicans will say it's mostly the fault of democrats and liberals and a softening of individual responsibility. Like I already said, some will blame other things, like the dismantling of the nuclear family (single-parent families, lesbian/homosexual parents, etc) or demoralization (people don't think in terms of good and evil as much anymore) or other things. But, in sum, republicans will tell you that things aren't going well in the US because the US has lost its way and it's not using the advice they've given.

There was something recently that came up from China, I think. It was a paper - or a study - that claimed the strong christian faith of the younger US was what make it prosperous. I did not actually read it. But I'm sure anybody could google it with the information I've shown here.

reply to post by Cabin


What I dislike about Europe is the progressive mindset. You would think after facing the progressive nightmare with Hitler and Stalin they would have learned. But the progressives pipe dream is strong and has many faces.




Whenever you put the rights of the whole over the rights of the individual bad things will come. How do I know this? Look back into history and really get to know it. Hitler was a man of the people and many things he did where for the greater good. Stalin and Mao also put the masses before the individual to terrible effects.



I will say it again if you put the rights of the masses before the rights of the individual it will lead to Fascism. It could take 100 years but it will always end the same. Hitler,Stalin,Mao were all men of the people looking out for the greater good.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ANOK

 

The state acts AS PROXY for the workers. The workers being all citizens of a nation. Its really that simple.

No, it's not just that simple. Socialism does not use a state system, period. Marxism, the political path to socialism, called for a temporary state system ran and controlled by the workers. Known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, a tongue-in-cheek play on capitalist economic authoritarian dictatorship.

Anarchist socialists called for revolution and direct action, as apposed to the political path of Marxism.

Once again you are trying to make the case for state capitalism and that is typical with social libertarians or anarchists.

No I'm not. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. State capitalism is ownership of the means of production by the state for party members.

Look up the definition of government and what it is SUPPOSED to do. There is no such thing as a "stateless and classless society" outside of anarchism.

I never said there was. Anarchism IS socialism.

Yes anarchism is part of marxism but it is so extreme it becomes completly dellusional!

Hmmm your opinion. Anarchism is not part of Marxism, it is a part of socialism. Socialism came before Marxism.

Nationalising the resources is what creates both socialism and communism. Socialism is a mixed economy and communism is a full public economy.

No it doesn't. Nationalisation is nationalisation, not socialism.

Forget anarchy. It is a pipe dream. I can't believe people star your nonsense!

Ironic coming from someone who's main argument against socialism is they think it requires a state system. So the state is OK as long as the economy is capitalist?

Hey, forget you. It's not nonsense it's history. Socialism is not a form of state political system, it is an economic system that is ultimately state free, even Marxism.

If people go around making false claims I will put them straight, doesn't mean I'm an active anarchists. I am simply interested in political theory and history.

"A kind of spurious socialism has arisen…that…declares all state ownership…to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon…must be numbered among the founders of socialism. The transformation…into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalistic machine, the state of the capitalists…The more it proceeds to take over productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The capitalist relation is not done away with, it is rather brought to a head." Frederik Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, talking about liberalism masquerading as socialism.

So a question for you, how can socialism be a state political system if anarchists are socialists?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"Socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class" Karl Marx

When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction...

...Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances. But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers* and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism Noam Chomsky Our Generation, Spring/Summer, 1986

Socialism is not what you have been told it is.

Originally posted by SubTruth
What I dislike about Europe is the progressive mindset. You would think after facing the progressive nightmare with Hitler and Stalin they would have learned. But the progressives pipe dream is strong and has many faces.

Hitler and Stalin were not progressives, they were right-wing authoritarians.

Whenever you put the rights of the whole over the rights of the individual bad things will come. How do I know this? Look back into history and really get to know it. Hitler was a man of the people and many things he did where for the greater good. Stalin and Mao also put the masses before the individual to terrible effects.

Hitler was not a man of the people, he was an authoritarian dictator who lied to gain power.

I will say it again if you put the rights of the masses before the rights of the individual it will lead to Fascism. It could take 100 years but it will always end the same. Hitler,Stalin,Mao were all men of the people looking out for the greater good.

They were not men of the people, they were liars and frauds. Read "1984", George Orwell was a socialist who took part in the Spanish Revolution in 1936. 1984 was about the authoritarianism of Stalin and the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks were never communist. They changed their name to the Communist Party in order to gain support of the people, in order to take state power for themselves. The economy of the USSR was state-capitalist, not socialist/communist.

The left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution that were led or supported by left-wing groups such as Socialist Revolutionaries, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and anarchists. Some were in support of the White Movement, while some tried to be an independent force. The uprisings started in 1918 and continued during and after the Russian Civil War until around 1924. The Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to invite these groups to join the government and instead suppressed them with force.

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks

reply to post by ANOK


Maybe the authors of the communist manifesto were zionists? Maybe that is why it does not make any sense

When you ask someone about socialism, do they refer to anarchy or state owned and operated business? Yes the people theoretically own and run business and the government manages it for them. The government is the management.

I am not against any political system as such. I am against crooks and corrupt systems.

Lastly MARXISM encompasses socialism, communism and anarchy.

reply to post by ANOK


Hitler was a national socialist that wanted to expand german influence throughout the world by getting colonies for germany, just like france/england/spain/portugal/holland had. Hitler also wanted revenge against the allies from world war 1. the people were desperate for change because their economy was crumbling. National Socialism brought down the monarchies of europe and was popular in many countries of europe between the 20s and 40s. Not all national socialist countries were warmongers. Most were not! Of course the ptb used nazism and facism TO SMEAR national socialism.

Stalin was a communist dictator who wanted to expand russian influence and spread communism. Communism brought down the czar of russia.

National Socialism is/was center-left politics and communism is far left politics. That is why germans and russians hated each other enough to go to war.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ANOK

 

Maybe the authors of the communist manifesto were zionists?

Maybe that is why it does not make any sense

Have you ever read it? Not all socialists are Marxists, I hope you realise that? The Manifesto was the plan of the Communists in the International Workingmens Association (1st International). Marx was not a politician. Many socialists disagreed with Marx, most notably Mikhail Bakunin who was an anarchist, and also an IWA member alongside Marx.

When you ask someone about socialism, do they refer to anarchy or state owned and operated business? Yes the people theoretically own and run business and the government manages it for them. The government is the management.

Socialism requires no government. Socialism is the workers ownership and control of the means of production, not government. Government ownership is state-capitalism, not socialism.

I am not against any political system as such. I am against crooks and corrupt systems.

Lastly MARXISM encompasses socialism, communism and anarchy.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Marxism and Anarchism are political systems.

Communism and socialism are the same thing. Marxism is a political path to socialism, anarchism is the direct action path to socialism.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.

Edgar Hardcastle, Socialist Standard, August 1936.

"Direct Action" is the distinctive contribution of anarchists in the realm of political method. While reformists advocate the ballot box, liberals have their lobbying and their letter writing, bureaucrats have their work through "the proper channels" and socialists have their vanguard parties, we anarchists have direct action. Political tendencies other than anarchism may adopt direct action as a method but its historical origins and its most vigorous proponents are anarchist. Because direct action is a political method, before we can properly understand it and its place in anarchist practice we must first examine the nature of anarchist political activity...

www.spunk.org...

reply to post by ANOK


It seems you are obsessed with theory rather than practicality.

Both socialism and communism are eco-political sytems and there is no proof of state capitalism.

Anarchy means no government and is a utopian fantasy.

Lets just agree to disagree!

reply to post by ANOK


Hitler was not right wing....... I love progressive history lessons.




The political spectrum is made up of control which are actually laws. On the far right you have the lack of any control or laws and this is anarchy. The farther left you go the more laws and controls you will see until you have total control which is fascism.



Truth be told fascism,communism,socialism are all forms of oligarchies. That is why the founding fathers of America wanted a Republic ruled by law. They truly understood the dangers of what democracies can bring.


You should really look at the Nazi movement and what they wanted. It was about the workers and nationalism. Hitler took great inspiration from the early progressive movement in America.

Originally posted by Cabin
Europe is often portrayed as being socialistic overtaxed nanny-state, where people have no rights and opportunities, while all the money is taken by the government.

This is just..entire BS...I really don't know what else to reply there. But I know that some think like that, for example my wife's parents

As someone who lived about a decade in the US and otherwise in EU, I can tell you that the US is not even *remotely* (say: REMOTELY) nowhere near what rights we have, when it comes to social, work, health etc..etc...and the statement "there are no opportunities" and "all the money is taken" is just too stupid to even reply to.

Rest assured, there is no active or whatsoever "government control" and the freedom you have to do whatever you want, also in terms of "making it" is the same if not even greater as compared to the US. Me thinks that some of those republicans *think* that alleged "socialist Europe" must be equal to the former Soviet Union or old Eastern Europe..or they are simply making this up knowing very well they are lying.

The other point is that "Europe" is WAY, WAY too diverse to generalize the entire continent and make broad statements..it's just ridiculous. What is that "Europe"? Is it the UK? Is it Germany? Is it Spain? Is it the former Eastern Block countries? ALL those nations are extremely different from each other in so many ways that you cannot draw a broad, ultra-simplified picture of what "Europe" is or where that alleged "socialist" Europe is supposed to be where "the government takes all your money and there are no opportunities".

Originally posted by SubTruth
reply to post by ANOK

 

Hitler was not right wing.......

I love progressive history lessons.

national socialist workers party. he was center-left. The man grow up in poverty, was a ww1 soldier and a failed art student in austria. he was "right wing" only in relation to communists.

The political spectrum is made up of control which are actually laws. On the far right you have the lack of any control or laws and this is anarchy. The farther left you go the more laws and controls you will see until you have total control which is fascism.

Total control is communism, not fascism(italian national socialism). Arguably anarchy could be considered extreme right and that is what i thought in the past. But the left has many anarchists as well and they hide under social libertarianism which in actuality is an oxymoron. Libertarianism is one step from anarchy although a giant step from it.

Truth be told fascism,communism,socialism are all forms of oligarchies. That is why the founding fathers of America wanted a Republic ruled by law. They truly understood the dangers of what democracies can bring.

It is not necessary to have a dictatorship but it usually amounts to this to fight off capitalists who try to overturn it. It is not really democracy at all though. Communism is extreme left with the biggest government and the most controls and everything belongs in the public sector.

Capitalism is either center-right or far right politics. It can also have a big government if it is run by liberals.

reply to post by ANOK

Hitler and Stalin were not progressives, they were right-wing authoritarians.

The only true part of this statement is they were both authoritarian. You are trying to assert anarchism in place of Communism. Stalin was a Communist no doubt. Socialists classically had an argument against Communists but that doesn't mean they weren't cut from the same cloth. I like to give the example of the territorial behavior of the mafia. One mafia guy has a territorial dispute against another and so goes and shoots him. Does that mean they are not both mafia? Of course not.
Antony Sutton explains the faux Hegelian left/right argument in this set up of pitting Leninism against Nazism.
Marx himself used the terms socialist and communist interchangeably, and it is certain that both Marx and Lenin agreed that socialism was a path to communism. And they both agreed that a dictatorship of the Proletariat must occur. The so called end result of a classless state is a fantasy.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Anarchism could be either extreme left or extreme right, because it emphasis non-government, and this is why the current admin namingly Janet Napolitano and Nancy Pelosi tried to label the Tea Party as extreme right wing fanatics wielding guns, because the Marxists in power at the WH advocate Statism and Big Government, as well as confiscation of guns so the people cannot resist tyranny. If they can paint the Tea Party as anarchist then they can set a precedent against them. The truth is most Tea Party advocate limited government, not no government, and the Progressives within the Republican Party itself still advocate bigger government, just not quite as big as the Democrats.

It is not necessary to have a dictatorship but it usually amounts to this to fight off capitalists

Only in the sense that Capitalists are considered the enemy by Communists. Otherwise, dictatorship is necessary to force people to comply with the State. Perhaps Capitalists are indicated here because Capitalists often do not respond well to Statism and bureaucratic regulation...

reply to post by Cabin

What are the reasons behind their misinformed messages?

I'm not real sure about "their's" at the moment, but I DO know the reason behind your "misinformed message":
Your "message" is based ENTIRELY on the opinions of those who wrote your source material.

See ya,
Milt

Nanny state? America has a minimum wage, Germany does not. The Germans want to introduce a minimum wage though. I think that would work against the little people, because instead of each company setting their own price, low end jobs would just pay out minimum wage and thats it. If companies would conspire together to cap off wages they would be in the #ter. And as for taxes, the America of the 50s 60s Republicans like to remember with fondness, had some of the highest taxes in the world.

Also not all is well in Europe. When Americans say Europe they mean Germany, Spain, Italy England, France and if they stretch themselves portugal. But there are other countries in the EU not necessarily so well off. I guess in America the affluency between the states is more levelled out.

reply to post by flexy123

I can tell you that the US is not even *remotely* (say: REMOTELY) nowhere near what rights we have

Perhaps that really depends on what your definition of "rights" is. To a social democrat, a right denotes the right to have a job, a home, food, clothing, cars (or maybe bikes in some places) and whatever else at the expense of the state. To a conservative, a right means private property rights acquired through personal work, and the right to life and liberty, the right to express discontent against government tyranny, and such.

So which type of rights does the EU have?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It seems you are obsessed with theory rather than practicality.

No, I am trying to point out that socialism is not what you have been told it is.

Both socialism and communism are eco-political sytems and there is no proof of state capitalism.

No, socialism and communism are the same thing, and both are economic systems.

You seem to keep missing that anarchism is a form of socialism.

Anarchy means no government and is a utopian fantasy.

Well that is your opinion. Anarchy means no government. Anarchism was the revolutionary wing of socialism. The reason they chose that term was because the term had been used by the press as a derogatory term for socialists. Socialism is ultimately anarchist, even Marxism, because the ultimate goal of socialism is the liberty of the working class from the chains of authoritarian institutions, including capitalism. The goal of socialism is 'free association'.

Anarchists have to be socialist because anything else is exploitation. If you realise that socialism is simply worker ownership this will all make sense. If you keep insisting what happened in so called "communist" nations is what communism/socialism was about then you will always be under the thumb of the state you have now.

Frederik Engels...

"A kind of spurious socialism has arisen…that…declares all state ownership…to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon…must be numbered among the founders of socialism. The transformation…into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalistic machine, the state of the capitalists…The more it proceeds to take over productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The capitalist relation is not done away with, it is rather brought to a head." Frederik Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, talking about liberalism masquerading as socialism.

Karl Marx...

"Socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class"

Free association is the goal of socialism, of all kinds...

Free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, a community of freely associated individuals) is a relationship among individuals where there is no state, social class or authority and private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production enabling them to freely associate (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their individual and creative needs and desires. The term is used by anarchists and Marxists and is often one considered a defining feature of a fully developed communist society.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

The USSR, and other so called "communist" nations, are not examples of communism/socialism. They are examples of authoritarian states that came to power by lying to their constituents. You have to understand the political climate of pre-ware Europe. The working class were still a very powerful and vocal majority, who understood that they would be better off if they owned the means of production themselves. There was the revolution in Spain, ran by the anarchist organisation the CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo). They ran the country on socialist principles for two years very successfully.

Instead of agreeing to disagree, how about you actually read some of Marx and other socialist authors? Your arguments are not based on what socialists said or wanted, it's based on the misunderstandings created by the right-wing establishment press (there is no left-wing in MSM).

This is socialism, not what happened in Russia, or China etc...

flag.blackened.net...

struggle.ws...