Post: #101

(10-27-2013 06:57 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  If you're a successful dude with ambition, it's delusional to think Europe is better than the US in terms of providing you with a good future.

So no wealthy, comfortable Europeans exist? Sure. Those Real Madrid footballers must be living in high rise flats, what with all that Stalinist health care and draconian tax system.

Seriously, there are ways to get around the tax issues too, the same ways wealthy people do it around the world.

Anyway, most guys on the forum want to leave their overly-comfortable homelands (both North America and Western Europe) and reside in places with lower standard of living etc. Such as Russia, or the Ukraine. A "good future" isn't all about finances. I wouldn't want to live in America because certain aspects of the culture there are a turn off, to me. Sorry to derail the thread slightly.

Personally, I'd rather live in these so-called 'socialist' countries, as they're more like what I'm used to. However, none of these Northern European countries are really socialist, they're capitalist with large government spending and yes, higher taxes. It's tricky. Cuba is socialist, at least in my understanding.

Also, regarding 'fascism' (Italian Fascism, not Nazism)...that's another tricky one. Yes, it is socialist in some ways. However, it also advocates the merging (or extremely close ties) of corporations and the government, alongside a strong nationalistic populace and a reverence for militarism. America has therefore had fascist elements for decades.

Post: #102

(10-27-2013 03:24 AM)MunichSux Wrote:  Guys and Gals, calm down ! Neither europe nor the USA will collapse. It only does on television (RTtoday etc.) and in the press. Why ? Because drama makes headlines, and since I can read (around 1984!), the world "collapses" daily. Sometimes it's unemployment (was the big theme in my native Germany, the welfare reform undertaken by then cancellor Gerhard Schroeder's administration has dramatically lowered it, we now have a 20 year low in unemployment, luckily), then it's debt, then it's immigration etc. Temp work has gotten a bad reputation here, so now the favorite theme of Germany's left-wing publications is how bad being employed by temps like manpower is and how they abuse their staff. I've worked for a couple of them and never ran into problems, though I was supposed to be "abused", lol.

Yep. Thanks for this bit of sanity.

Post: #103

Brand is only worth 15 million. He's comfortably rich. Is that considered being in the 1%? I don't know. I don't think so. Is he rich enough to make a difference? Does he have enough influence to make a difference? Doubt it.

I do know that he will lose some jobs because of stuff like this. Show biz doesn't like conflicts of interest like that.

I do think it is time for a change though, but people aren't going to really do anything until it is to late.

Are things really that bad? How has your life changed for the worse since you've been born? My life is pretty much the same if not better.

Post: #104

Is it just me or are people totally confusing European style democratic socialism ("social democracy") with Soviet style communism, i.e. Leninism-Marxism? It seems like that's a popular thing to do nowadays...it's one thing to do it for fun (hyperbole) but the two are different, even if they share some ideological roots. A lot of the lefties in Europe are commies for sure, but even the right wing parties favor a strong welfare state.

Post: #105

(10-27-2013 08:28 AM)Flint Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 06:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:41 PM)Flint Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 05:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  No it isn't. You can have socialism for everyone or you can have it just for a select group of people.

That's called capitalism.

Seriously, are we speaking the same language here? Is an ideology that emphasizes the natural equality of all people (socialism) the same to you as an ideology that is based on the concept of an allegedly natural race hierarchy (fascism)?

I'm not a socialist, btw.

Perhaps you should go read some Karl Marx, the champion of socialism, who understood capitalism far better than you do.

Marx defined capitalism as when the means of production are privately owned. Socialism is the opposite, when the means of production are publicly owned.

Get it? Fascism does not believe in private ownership, hence it is a form of socialism, i.e. part of the left.

Today, many people on the left try to paint fascism as a right-wing ideology, but this just a typical left-wing ploy to manipulate the true meanings of words in order to make the right look bad.

But for those who actually read the original philosophical texts, we know better.

You are mistaken, fascism is perfectly compatible with private ownership. There is nothing like a prototypically political economy of fascism as most fascist governments (Italy, Germany, Croatia, etc.) resorted to very different policies that cannot be solely described as either socialist or capitalist. For instance, Nazi Germany while pushing a four year plan to prepare the invasion of Poland and public infrastructure programs (which could be called socialist) did NOT expropriate the entrenched non-Jewish corporations. Hitler never wanted to abolish private ownership of the means of production and most of his advisers intended to introduce a market economy after the war. Big business (Krupp, Siemens, Bosch) flourished under the Nazis as they made huge profits from the slave labor of POWs and in the occupied territories. If fascism were socialist, these profits would have been nationalized.

My initial response was simply a pointed emphasis to show that "socialism for a select group of people" automatically ceases to be socialist.

All fascist states used corporatism to advance their causes. This is not private ownership because these corporations are not in competition with the regular market.

Furthermore, even the USSR had private ownership of some things, even if things were made to look like it was publicly owned. There was a massive disparity of wealth in the USSR.

Post: #106

(10-27-2013 02:54 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Is it just me or are people totally confusing European style democratic socialism ("social democracy") with Soviet style communism, i.e. Leninism-Marxism? It seems like that's a popular thing to do nowadays...it's one thing to do it for fun (hyperbole) but the two are different, even if they share some ideological roots. A lot of the lefties in Europe are commies for sure, but even the right wing parties favor a strong welfare state.

Welfare state isn't necessarily socialist (it's not a means of production) however many right wingers do not like it because of the level of state power it creates over citizens.

Post: #107

^ I think all members should take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There have been threads about it previously, but I think a lot of people with this fervent 'anti-European style social democracy' thinking may find their real political persuasion is different than the one they project to the world. I thought I was pretty right wing, with my anti-multicultural and non-P.C worldview, but in actuality it turns out I'm not right-wing at all. I think all these terms are outdated, and its more about authoritarianism (political correctness is extremely authoritarian) versus anarchism and other things.

Edit: The "^" was in reference to Rex's post.

Post: #108

(10-27-2013 03:10 PM)Teedub Wrote:  ^ I think all members should take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There have been threads about it previously, but I think a lot of people with this fervent 'anti-European style social democracy' thinking may find their real political persuasion is different than the one they project to the world. I thought I was pretty right wing, with my anti-multicultural and non-P.C worldview, but in actuality it turns out I'm not right-wing at all. I think all these terms are outdated, and its more about authoritarianism (political correctness is extremely authoritarian) versus anarchism and other things.

Edit: The "^" was in reference to Rex's post.

Yeah, all members should take this test without a doubt. Far too many members on political threads use the 'right' and the 'left' as absolute terms to argue their points and don't understand that the political spectrum is quite wide with a lot of range.

Post: #109

(10-27-2013 03:20 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 03:10 PM)Teedub Wrote:  ^ I think all members should take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There have been threads about it previously, but I think a lot of people with this fervent 'anti-European style social democracy' thinking may find their real political persuasion is different than the one they project to the world. I thought I was pretty right wing, with my anti-multicultural and non-P.C worldview, but in actuality it turns out I'm not right-wing at all. I think all these terms are outdated, and its more about authoritarianism (political correctness is extremely authoritarian) versus anarchism and other things.

Edit: The "^" was in reference to Rex's post.

Yeah, all members should take this test without a doubt. Far too many members on political threads use the 'right' and the 'left' as absolute terms to argue their points and don't understand that the political spectrum is quite wide with a lot of range.

Already exists: /thread-16516.html

Post: #110

^ Yeah I said in my post there had been a couple of threads about it, but I was just saying that I think people commenting in this thread, on both sides, should take it.

Post: #111

(10-27-2013 03:20 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 03:10 PM)Teedub Wrote:  ^ I think all members should take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There have been threads about it previously, but I think a lot of people with this fervent 'anti-European style social democracy' thinking may find their real political persuasion is different than the one they project to the world. I thought I was pretty right wing, with my anti-multicultural and non-P.C worldview, but in actuality it turns out I'm not right-wing at all. I think all these terms are outdated, and its more about authoritarianism (political correctness is extremely authoritarian) versus anarchism and other things.

Edit: The "^" was in reference to Rex's post.

Yeah, all members should take this test without a doubt. Far too many members on political threads use the 'right' and the 'left' as absolute terms to argue their points and don't understand that the political spectrum is quite wide with a lot of range.

Exactly. Both American mainstream parties are 'right wing'* compared to 'conservatives' in Britain. Yet both the Republicans and the Conservative Party are considered 'right wing' by the general populations in their respective countries.. I mean, there are people who think David Cameron is "worse than Hitler" because he wants to slightly lower housing benefit for people. Yet the amount that people would receive AFTER said cuts, would be seen as left wing in many places. It's all subjective.

* Right wing economically. Which, whilst badly named, is actually 'neo-liberal'.

Post: #112

Question to the Europeans on this board:

Are there any political parties in Europe as right-wing as the Tea Party/GOP is here in America?

I have always wondered what it was that made our right-wing so far right. It would be interesting to get your responses.

Post: #113

Erm, perhaps in some of the Euro countries, but I don't know enough to speculate. The only libertarian party in the UK is UKIP.

Post: #114

(10-27-2013 03:39 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Erm, perhaps in some of the Euro countries, but I don't know enough to speculate. The only libertarian party in the UK is UKIP.

The unique thing about the Tea Party/GOP here in America is that it is both a libertarian and Christian right-wing party. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any political parties in Europe quite like that. It may be a unique brand of American politics.

Post: #115

Just saw the Russell Brand video. His 'don't vote' rant reminds me of this from George Carlin.





I don't find Carlin funny. But I think he has a very clear way of thinking through issues.

Post: #116

(10-27-2013 03:44 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 03:39 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Erm, perhaps in some of the Euro countries, but I don't know enough to speculate. The only libertarian party in the UK is UKIP.

The unique thing about the Tea Party/GOP here in America is that it is both a libertarian and Christian right-wing party. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any political parties in Europe quite like that. It may be a unique brand of American politics.

Christianity doesn't really mean anything anymore in the North of Europe, it is still important in the East and the Med countries. I'm not saying if that's good or bad, just how it is.

I always find it interesting that the 'right' in America always use Christianity in their arguments against things like universal health care, when Jesus (at least a lot of his teachings imply) was basically a hippy.

Post: #117

(10-27-2013 03:55 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 03:44 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 03:39 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Erm, perhaps in some of the Euro countries, but I don't know enough to speculate. The only libertarian party in the UK is UKIP.

The unique thing about the Tea Party/GOP here in America is that it is both a libertarian and Christian right-wing party. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any political parties in Europe quite like that. It may be a unique brand of American politics.

Christianity doesn't really mean anything anymore in the North of Europe, it is still important in the East and the Med countries. I'm not saying if that's good or bad, just how it is.

I always find it interesting that the 'right' in America always use Christianity in their arguments against things like universal health care, when Jesus (at least a lot of his teachings imply) was basically a hippy.

Jesus said, "Give unto God what is God's, and give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Thus Jesus had a clear separation of church and state, and Jesus's motives were entirely apolitical. Not like a hippy at all.

Post: #118

If he advocated a separation, then the Christian 'right' need to stop invoking him in their speeches and so on don't they!

Post: #119

(10-27-2013 04:36 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Then the Christian 'right' need to stop invoking him in their speeches and so on don't they!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV

Yes. Technically, according to Jesus's Sermon On The Mount:

Quote:Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Quote:And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Quote:“When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Christianity is actually a very private religion. But you'd have to read the bible to know that. Most American Christians have never turned a page out of the good book, methinks.

Post: #120

(10-27-2013 03:55 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I always find it interesting that the 'right' in America always use Christianity in their arguments against things like universal health care, when Jesus (at least a lot of his teachings imply) was basically a hippy.

I would recommend looking up Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism."

Post: #121

I'll give it a read mate. I think I may refrain from these kinds of threads in future. There's a reason Roosh himself never gets involved, too much hard work for little reward! Ha.

Post: #122

(10-27-2013 04:54 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I'll give it a read mate. I think I may refrain from these kinds of threads in future. There's a reason Roosh himself never gets involved, too much hard work for little reward! Ha.

Oh you don't have to read it - a summary will do.

The next question you have will probably be - OK, so what the difference between the US and Northern Europe, then? (Why is religion taken more seriously here than there?) I think it's to do with a few things, one is that Church and State were separate which prevented religion from getting as easily discredited with the collapse of the old order as in Europe. Another is that we're a country of immigrants and a lot of the hard-core believers left England to set up over hear.

Niall Ferguson is big on this stuff...he's a Scottish professor of economic history (Harvard) worth looking up. I guess in the UK he'd be considered a right-winger for sure.

Well I kind of agree- I think these threads should be thought-provoking and not much else. I don't get emotionally invested.

Post: #123

I love Niall Ferguson. He has a great documentary series analysing the second world war as well (called The War of the World).

Strange because he mostly focuses on economic history these days.

One of my favourite pieces of music is the classical piece used at the start of each episode. I find it moving in a quiet subtle way. The music has more impact (for me) when you consider it in light of the subject matter of the documentary.

http://youtu.be/StJMQ5fSG6k?t=1m57s

Post: #124

(10-27-2013 05:09 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:54 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I'll give it a read mate. I think I may refrain from these kinds of threads in future. There's a reason Roosh himself never gets involved, too much hard work for little reward! Ha.

Oh you don't have to read it - a summary will do.

The next question you have will probably be - OK, so what the difference between the US and Northern Europe, then? (Why is religion taken more seriously here than there?) I think it's to do with a few things, one is that Church and State were separate which prevented religion from getting as easily discredited with the collapse of the old order as in Europe. Another is that we're a country of immigrants and a lot of the hard-core believers left England to set up over hear.

Niall Ferguson is big on this stuff...he's a Scottish professor of economic history (Harvard) worth looking up. I guess in the UK he'd be considered a right-winger for sure.

Well I kind of agree- I think these threads should be thought-provoking and not much else. I don't get emotionally invested.

Niall Ferguson is great. He's also married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ACTUAL fair feminist and somebody I hugely respect. Lindy West would tremble if faced with a debate against her.

Post: #125

I thought his choice of partner a bit odd. I guess Niall is one of those guys who gets off on smart women.