Topic: It's time for EUROPE to become SOCIALIST (Read 684 times)

I agree with you, we shouldn't force countries into socialsm. In my opinion most of the people don't want a socialst state and would never vote for it. Politicians maybe have some leniency to adjust policies in their own will but once the next election comes they probably will be removed from power. 

Seems like I managed to get an entire thread deleted with a post.  It was about America --to-->Communist, but it's basically the same thing.  Lemme see if I can get this thread nuked too

Israel Premier David Ben-Gurion in a statement published in the current issue of Look magazine
https://www.jta.org/1962/01/04/archive/ben-gurion-foresees-gradual-democratization-of-the-soviet-union:

“The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy.

“Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, ail other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.

“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India, And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years.”

http://www.whale.to/b/hate_q.html


And for some context/defense of the quote from a very appreciated informant for me, committed kabbalahist Doreen Dotan:

https://doreendotansarchive.blogspot.com/2009/11/

Its time for socialist to move to a socialist place and get away from normal humans.

BTW, what are you doing on bitcoin forum.

That is not quite correct. The UK didn't leave because they don't want immigration. They left because they don't want unelected and unaccountable outside bureaucrats to decide their immigeation (and everything else) for them.

And what's wrong with each sovereign country deciding their own policies anyway?

The EU supposedly started as an economic alliance with mist everyone under the same currency to faciliate commerce. Now it has turned into a gigantic bureaucracy that thinks it should control everyone.

Just right now we can see again that Europe is very far from being a socialist union. A lot of immigrants stranded in Greece needs to be resettled but there is no unity. The European Union lags a general approach towards immigration. The member states are very divided. You have Greece, Italy and Spain who want help in managing the large numbers of immigrants. You have countries like Germany and France who are willing to help out but are looking for a unified approach. And then you have countries who are against immigration. UK for example left EU because of this. Then there is the far right of Poland, Hungary, Sweden, Austria who are vetoing any common approach. This will be the downfall of the EU eventually.

Why is your State having military operations abroad in the first place? Yes the "free market" warfare was traditionally called mercenaries, today they use the "civil contractors" or a similar euphemism.

In "true" communism there is no State and no military, everyone is armed and willing to defend their home, not invade others to forcibly seize the means of production "liberate" the workers from the "shackles of capitalism".

Socialism is about a bigger State, the State owning the means of production, because that is somehow more fair. The larger the State you make, the less willing to go it is. Also, the individual freedoms get in the way of the almighty State, so those need to go.

In paper it sounds "beautiful", in practice its a never ending, self feeding corruption machine that makes everything much worse than people's pursue of wealth for selfish reasons, for some reason socialists cannot comprehend, and yet it always happens.

Socialists do not understand human nature. To try their theories, they need those pesky humans to be less human and more robots. Some even theorize the perfect ruler to be some AI, but this AI would quickly find the humans unreliable...

The social construct of money and the whole system of the market, capitalism, yadda, with all its "faults" its still better than anything else tried to this day anywhere. And it happens to solve many things peacefully and efficiently.

With socialism you are forced to enforce your new rules, because people don't like being told what to do. Unfortunately this doesn't escalate very well, and you get more bureaucracy to make sure those new rules are enforced and more to watch over those that watch them being enforced...

Conveniently, everything grinds into a halt, unless you somehow can make those officials move in your favor. In the name of Socialism, those with more wealth (the means of bribe) are the only ones that can make things done, certainly not the even more impoverished masses.

Humans don't always want to share, and you are pointing a gun at them so they "share". And then those in power form an elite doing, surprise, surprise, the same decadent egoistical things again: Not sharing.

So as long as you maintain a State, you maintain a caste of parasites "not sharing". Doesn't matter if they proclaim themselves as "socialists" and give charismatic speeches and wave red flags. Its all the same, the filth repeats over and over again.

In the end, socialism attempts to end poverty, by making everyone poorer, give freedom, by seizing it, etc, etc...

You need to read the Communist manifesto by Carl Marx. Socialism doesn't mean something I disagree with. Socialism and communism have very clean definitions completely unrelated to my wishes.
When the government controls, finances, or owns the education system, that is socialism. I'm not saying this, Carl Marx said it.
Now maybe you like socialist education, maybe the entire world (except me) likes socialist education. And maybe the entire world can decide to rename it 'public education'. But it's still socialism. It has nothing to do with me and you approving of it or not.

So be honest with yourself. You may decide that you like government financed and government controlled education. But that doesn't make it any less socialist, just because you like it, or just because most people like it. It's still socialism.

Most socialists are hell bent on renaming it 'public education' to hide the true mechanism of it. Don't be a hypocrit like the rest of them.
 

Not sure who you were addressing your post to. But I'll assume it was me.


I'm not a big fan of 'public opinion' and what most people want or believe. The undertone is that this is what most people think and there is something wrong with you if you don't follow most people. Perhaps you are not a team player?

I am a grown ass man for crying out loud, not a sheep who blindly follows most people.


I would never claim, nor would I care if my ideas were popular or not. There is something very wrong with saying that your position is popular. As if pupolarity could lend legitimacy to anything.


Socislism is not absolute. You don't wake up one morning and your newscast suddenly announces that today is tge first day of socislism. Socialism is most often a process, incidious, deceptive, and gradual.

And to simply put it, the USA has very strong elements of socialism. You might try to tell me that is what must people want, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the USA has very strong elements of socialism, and it's getting gradually worst.

The textbook definition of socialism is government either controlling or owning the means of production.

Does your government control, own, or finances health care and education? If so, you would be more accurate to call it socialist education and socialist health care instead of public education and single payer health care.

Socialists know that most people don't like socialism. So they rename everything in a more palatable and easier way to swallow.

Public education sounds so much better than socialist education, doesn't it?

And single payer health care also sounds so much better than socialist health care, no?

But they are the same thing.


Government controlling and financing the education system is the textbook definition of socialist education. It's not dependent on my opinion of it. It doesn't matter if 99.999% of the population like it or not, it's still socialism.

So at least be honest with yourself and call it what it is: socialist education, not 'public education'.


I have no idea what that means. You don't need to use public services to make money.

If you use public services, you are not making money, you are costing money to the tax payers.


Wake the fuck up already. The millitary industrial complex already catters to corporations and special interest. In fact one could argue it's already controlled by special interest.

The constitution only allows the government to raise a millitary in times of emergency, in times of war. It doesn't allow for a perpetual standing army.

“Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
 George Washinton, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

“The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Chandler Price, February 28, 1807

“War involves in its progress such a train of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances...that no human wisdom can calculate the end. It has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes.”
Thomas Paine, Prospects on the Rubicon, 1787

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787

“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787

And the fact and the matter is, the USA doesn't really need an army at all. Just allow every citizen to be armed as he pleases without arbitrary restrictions. And nobody will ever dare to attack the USA.

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to unknown recipient, February 25, 1803

Don't base everything off of the people you know.  Most people support public healthcare and education which is why almost every industrialized nation have both.  Have your opinion but at least be honest about the fact that you are in the minority.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-poll-69-percent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-education/2020/02/03/new-poll-finds-majority-of-voters-support-public-education-784977

What makes the country socialist?  Is it the moment things you don't agree on being funded collectively become collectively funded, the nation is socialist? So socialist just means you not getting your way? 

Money is social construct.  "making money" is an arbitrary metric that depends on use of public services.  Who would lose out if we let the free market control our military operations abroad?

What I'd add to that is socialists want lazy socialism with the government helping them to survive and they want their inability to make money be compensated by the rich, who already made money, or inherited it because their parents or grandparents knew how to make money.
Paying for military from taxes is not socialism. Some things can be agreed upon and financed collectively, which doesn't make the country socialist.
I'm a libertarian, but I know a lot of people with different political views and most of them oppose social security and believe healthcare, education and savings should be in the private sector and compete in a free market system.

That is to say despite being a socialist state they were as liberal towards the political and economic positions of the western countries as they were ideologically aligned with the countries of the soviet union and eastern europe. Politically the division between eastern europe and western europe was drawn on the basis of the socialist structure that existed in various european countries until the nineties especially in eastern european countries.

In the end it amounts to having a strong State tell people what to do, than letting them freely choose in a free market economy. Its no wonder some people advocate for getting rid of the State and having them govern themselves.

In any case Europe is pretty much socialist, so demanding more socialism just means having the State confiscate even more freedoms from individuals.

There are varying degrees of socialism. But the textbook definition is government either owning or controlling the means of production. So the government doesn't need to own it or finance it for it to be called socialism. If a government legislates it to the tits, it's socialism.

Do you know any area of your life that isn't legulated/permitted/licenced/taxed/regulated/subsidized by government?

Look up the 10 planks of communism. You will find they are all present to varying degrees within the USA.

You probably could make the arguement that other countries are more socialist than the USA. And that would probably be true for all nations outside North Korea. But make no mistakes about it, the USA is a socialist state.


Fuck that! There is no acceptable 'balance' of socialism anymore than there is an acceptable 'balance' of Nazism. Down with all forms of socialism.

I am with you on this one socialism is not the answer to all our economic problems. We have seen many countries in the past trying socialism and fail. Its just no long term solution because it will make a country and its economy less competitive in the long run. Which doesn't mean that all form of socialism is bad. Having a universal unemployment insurance or health insurance or retirement plans is a hood thing for a country. We need to balance socialism with capitalism.

I'm not promoting socialism. I am the furthest thing away from socialism.
I oppose socialism. This is why I am telling you the USA has strong socialist elements and becoming more socialist increasingly over the years.

And a free market can not be regulated. Else it's no longer a free market.
Government will always point to problems real or percieved within a certain area of life, than claim that they must interveed or else the bogeyman will get us all.

You can also pretend as if every socialist country hasn't turned into a dystopian hell hole. Socialism is a pure economic system that ceases private enterprise and turns over all means of production to the government with communal ownership. It is impossible to have private enterprise in a socialist nation and the U.S. has all sorts of private entities, so no, not socialist at all.

Nice try though


You probably don't know this, but did you know that any capitalistic society is regulated to ensure a free and fair market, aka no monopoly? Regulation exists in every capitalistic society. Doesn't make it socialism.

You can say that having socislist programs doesn't make a country socialist. But it's as meaningless as saying I ate a ceasar salad, therefore I am vegan/vegetarian.

Progressive and aggreisive taxation (meaning the tax rate increases as you make more money) is 100% a socialist concept. That we should tax the most productive people to give to the least productive ones is also 100% a socialist concept right out of the communist manifesto. You can try to tell yourself all you want that the USA is not a socialist system. But the USA has adopted strong socialist tendencies. Call it what you want - partial socialism, hidden socialism, whatever. But those are still socialism programs.

Please, give me one activity you can do in the USA without government taxing/permitting/licensing/subsidizing/regulating/standardizing it.

Wanna talk dirty to your girlfriend on the phone? Government is listening and saving your conversation. They are also regulating your phone and your cell network up to.the tits too.

"So it's a stupid cop out to say "socialist programs don't make a country socialist"." You literally contradict yourself here. If adopting a public library system doesn't make a country socialist, how the hell is what I said a cop out?

By your definition of "social programs = socialist", by this logic, tax rates, free market regulations, are all "socialist". In any free market system, regulations exist to ensure a fair free market. That isn't socialist at all. In the same note, public utilities does not mean socialism. The U.S. has social security and medicare, two "socialist" programs, doesn't make the U.S. socialist.


Nah, I'm good. Not like socialism/communism has led every nation that has tried it to utter failure and dictatorship.



Having "socialist" programs does not make a nation socialist which is my entire point. You can argue all you want about the labeling of what type of program it is. A socialist nation presumably would have commerce, yes? Does that make a socialist nation capitalist? Nope.

Of course a country adopting a public library system or public water works doesn't make the country instantaniously a socialist system..But a public library is a socialist program and public education is a sociaoist program.

In my country today, right now, we have socialized road system, socialized libraries, socialized post office, socialized welfare system, socialized retorement, socialized health care, socialized gun control, socialized pretty much everything.
You can't point to a single thing you can do in my country without government taxing it, regulating it, permitting it, licensing it, subsidizing it, and legislating it.

So it's a stupid cop out to say "socialist programs don't make a country socialist".

I suggest you read the communist manifesto by Carl Marx. In it you will find the 10 planks of communism, or if you prefer the 10 items needed to implement communism. Virtually every western country has slready implemented those 10 planks to varying degress.

So you'd be hard pressed to claim you are not at sll living in a socialist country.


But of course capitalism and socialist programs are at odds woth each other.
Capitalism is essencially free market and socialist programs are about forcing everyone into paying for the government programs. They are directly at odds with each other.

A socialist program like public libraries doesn't turn a country suddenly into a socialist state anymore than me eating kale makes me a vegetarian. But socialist public libraries and centralized government armies are socialist programs none the less. And they run counter to capitalism and the principal of free market.

You can't point a gun at my head to force me to pay for your socialist programs and keep pretending you are not implementing a socialist system.

try to note that recently Europe is experiencing a fairly large demo. The main indicator is that left-wing activists are trying to provoke an incident. so for me it is still too far if Europe becomes socialist if problems are not resolved and anticipated. Moreover, this concerns ethnicity, especially ethnic minorities