🚀 go-pugleaf

ab> Alex Bunker
gs> Gary Strand

ab> [I]n general blue collar workers and lefty intellectuals belong to the 
ab> same political party and have the same voting habits. I am talking about 
ab> a global average here.

gs> You mean a Western European average. Strange how the voting habits and po-
gs> litical outlook of 250 million Americans counts much less than the same of
gs> ~300 million Europeans. Methinks you're stuck on the old pre-WWI European
gs> view of itself, ie, a shining beacon unto the world of groping-in-the-dark
gs> masses. Sorry, but that just isn't true any more.

ab> I am thinking of not just europe but the entire democratic world including
ab> Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand etc...

  It really doesn't change my argument, does it? The "entire democratic world"
  is still a minority. Your "global average" means "average of late-industrial
  and post-industrial representative democracies", which, considering that the
  US makes up a fair chunk (population-wise) of that set, means that socialism
  of the European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealandian variety is far from a
  massive majority view. Japan is in a separate category, for the most part,
  as are the mostly-democratic semi-capitalist nations of Taiwan, South Korea,
  Hong Kong, Singapore, and so on.

  In any case, all the countries which have your style of socialism have other
  parties of lesser or greater socialistic orientation, those parties with a
  decidedly less leftist bent being ascendant for several years now, at least. 

gs> In any case, your average lefty intellectual is so far removed from basic
gs> theories on government power, economics, and monetary policies, that it's
gs> no wonder that wherever and whenever their ideas have been tried, (at best)
gs> the society as a whole has remained stuck, or has declined. I am including
gs> Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, and so on here too.

ab> HA HA HA HA HA AH A !!!!!!

ab> This is very funny. You just mentioned a set of countries EVERY one of
ab> which has a healthier economy than the US as well as being more socially
ab> advanced.

gs> Prove it. Show that these economies during the period from (say) 1950-today
gs> have been historically more healthy than the US' economy, controlling for
gs> non-economic factors, so that we can see whether or not your contention 
gs> that Eurosocialism is the wave of the present and the future. Also, your
gs> claims to a greater degree of "social advancement" sound remarkably hollow
gs> and biased. Where were fascism, Naziism, and Communism invented? Not in 
gs> the US, I can assure you. Also, which countries started WWI and WWII?

ab> They started WAY behind but in the past 30 years have rocketed past the
ab> US.

  With little things like the Marshall Plan and the US providing the bulk of
  their defense helping things a bit. Or have you forgotten that? Also, I
  wouldn't exactly call their economic advancement "rocketing", generally,
  when the US economy falters, so do the economies of the nations of West-
  ern Europe; as the US economy improves, so do the economies of Western
  Europe; and, to a lesser extent, the reverse direction is true. This is
  mainly because the US economy is so huge, and also because the strongest
  economic ties are between the US, Canada, Western Europe, and Japan. 
  Anyway, why don't you look into statistics like worker productivity, con-
  sumer price increases, GNP growth, and so on. It's hardly the case that
  Europe has had unparalleled economic growth since WWII, and the US has
  been barely hanging on.

ab> Sure Fascism and Communism were bad ideas but so were racism and McCar-
ab> thyism.

  Europeans aren't racist? Come now! Why do immigrant workers have such a
  tough time of it, then? Also, you left out Naziism (can't forget that!)
  and making a parallel between communism and McCarthyism is a little sil-
  ly. The magnitudes are very far apart.

ab> And dont tell me fascism never had any following in the USA.

  I didn't say that it didn't, but it has never come close to becoming the
  predominant political belief, as it did in Italy and Spain. There's kooks
  in every country, although Europe has had more than its share over the
  last 100 years or so.

ab> There are more NEO-NAZIs in the USA than Germany.

  Can you prove this? In any case, US Nazis have never gotten significant
  political power, which can't be said for German Nazis.

ab> It is my beilef that social democracy is the path of the future. Only
ab> time will prove me right or wrong. Personally I would much rather live
ab> in a social democratic country because it has all the things which I
ab> personally find to be what I call "advanced". It is mostly a matter of
ab> opinions and priorities.

  And how much force you're willing to expend to create your "priorities".
  It all comes down to how much raw physical violence the government is
  willing to use to create the society some number of its members desire.
  Since your perfect society requires a much larger and more powerful gov-
  ernment than mine does, I'd say the odds that your society will degener-
  ate and become tyrannical are much greater.

gs> The US is declining, as are all other countries, in direct proportion to 
gs> the amount of State control over the economy.

ab> No, Germany and france have far MORE government involvment in thier econ-
ab> omies and are doing far BETTER because of it.

  How can you know this? The XUSSR government had total control over its 
  economy, yet its economy crumbled disastrously. Obviously, there is some
  point of government control beyond which the economy won't work. I believe
  this point is much less than where you believe it should be, and I use 
  the US economy as an example. The more government control there has been,
  the less-well the economy has functioned.

ab> They have LESS POVERTY CRIME AND no "poverty trap".

  You needn't yell. Anyway, how can you determine the causative mechanism be-
  tween the degree of government control of the economy and how much crime,
  poverty, etc. there is? One would have to look at historical statistics
  and determine if there is a causative relationship between the two, and I
  don't think it's possible to prove it.

ab> Government NONINTERVENTION does not cause this. wise and well thought out
ab> government INTERVENTION does this.

  "Wise and well thought out government intervention" is oxymoronic.

ab> These countries are kicking the US economic butt by government involvment
ab> in economic policy.

gs> I guess this explains why the socialists are getting kicked out, and those
gs> that remain are dropping their socialist ideals very quickly.

ab> What ARE you talking about here? Please I hope you are not stupid enough
ab> to confuse the eastern european communists with western european social
ab> democrats.

  No, I'm talking Kinnock being beaten, Mitterand just holding on, the Swedes
  knocking down their top tax rates, the Norweigians being highly dissatisfied
  with their socialists, &c.

gs> I wonder what your parents and grandparents have to say about the US.

ab> My mother was a refugee from Hungary in 1956. She HATES what the US did
ab> as much as she did the exUSSR. They did not care one shit for Hungarian
ab> wellbeing or lives. When the war was hopeless and Soviet troops were pour-
ab> ing across the border, Radio Free America broadcast "Keep up the good fight
ab> we are coming to help you" when they had no intention of helping and
ab> 100s of young Hungarians lost their life in a hopeless fight as a result
ab> in order keep the attention of the USSR away from other matters that the
ab> US had geopolitical intersts in. 

  What would you have preferred the US do? Come stomping in with full military
  force? Then your wonderful Europe would have been turned into a smoking
  radioactive wasteland. Would the short-term survival of some Hungarians
  been worth a nuclear war between the US and USSR? I wasn't aware the lives
  of some thousands or tens of thousands of Hungarians were worth more than
  the lives of tens of millions of Soviets, Americans, British, French, Ger-
  mans, Italians, &c. As it was, the US pushed the Soviets hard enough over
  the last decade to cause their empire to fall without a shot being fired.
  I prefer that course. I'm sorry your mother feels otherwise, but when
  nukes are involved, the equation shifts a bit. Besides, why didn't the
  other Europeans step in and help?

gs> I take your views as seriously as I take those of college-age Americans,
gs> which is to say that they "benefit" from having all of 5 years worth of
gs> memories, and an accompanying inability to understand history or the rea-
gs> sons why things are the way they are. You are the same way. It's really
gs> quite easy to become oh-so-stereotypically-European-snobbish towards the
gs> US, because you don't remember or understand the role the US has played
gs> since WWI in keeping Europe at least semi-stable and prosperous. 

ab> Should the people of the world pay permanent homage to the American
ab> people for a historic act? 

  No, but it ought to be remembered. Look at it this way -- between 1945 and
  1949, the US had a complete monopoly on nuclear weapons and could have 
  demanded any behavior it wanted from any nation. Instead, it offered to
  unilaterally disarm itself, the only condition being that all other coun-
  tries stop their own development of nuclear weapons. That opportune moment
  was lost, however. Anyway, the point is that the US has often extended a
  helping hand to its former enemies (Germany and Japan) whereas the other
  major victor of WWII, the USSR, enslaved the millions under its control.

  I'm not saying that you should be "eternally" grateful, but at least rec-
  ognize the role the US has played in helping to keep Europe stable, and
  protected from the USSR. Without its efforts, I wonder if Europe would
  even be around.

gs> Again, your narrow view prevents you from understanding that when you say
gs> "most countries", you mean "most Western European countries".

ab> Japan, NZ, Australia, Brazil , Chile, Venezuela, Namibia are of course 
ab> ALL european countries. OH my Europe is BIG!

  Your last four are rather odd additions to the list. Brazil's Collor is
  in *deep* trouble, Chile managed to do quite well under Pinochet, com-
  pared to other South American countries run by the military, and Venez-
  uela is currently in a decidedly non-democratic state, courtesy Fujimoro.
  And why do you include Namibia? Why not include Cuba, Angola, Somalia?


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF