Current Events in the News (commentary) Split #2

[BBsq69]

Whelp, let's start with the Weimar Republic. Then let's also move on to virtually every country in Eastern Europe. The history is there.

Technically all those Eastern European countries were destroyed by the totalitarian Soviet Union and their version of  communism not socialism - for some reason it seems very hard for Americans to grasp the difference just like many in Europe find it difficult to grasp the difference between Democrats and Republicans ... except that the latter would never have brought in Obamacare. Germany have had many successful years under Social Democrats, the Swedes didn't do badly under socialism and neither did the UK except for a failure to control the unions in the 1970s which led to Thatcher destroying most of the industry of the UK and well over 4 million unemployed. Americans might like her but outside the South of England she was hated. Also France has not done badly. They have traditionally been a lot of communists in Italy and France but fortunately they ahve never been able to gain power

Of course (and I thought it did in America as well as you can have liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats) liberalism is not any related to socialism. There's absolutely nothing liberal about the old Soviet Empire nor Russia today.

Sadly however I have to report that the Labour Party in England has been hijacked by a bunch of Marxists thanks to a stupid electoral system. Fortunately I do not think Labour stand a chance while led by this bunch  of sheep. It wasn't Socialism that caused the collapse in 2008 but banks, especially those in the US. Greece's problems are caused by Germany relaxing the rules allowing southern European countries to join the Euro partly because no-one fears their own nationalism like Germany. IMO once the scale of Greece's problems became apparent they should just have been kicked out. The argument was there would be a domino effect in Southern Europe but I don't think there was any chance of Italy being kicked out. Germany keeps Greece, who now put previously didn't have a socialist (bordering on communist) government who make bold statements to their voters but the reality is they have to agree with whatever Germany tells them.

I would classify myself as a liberal which in Europe means believing in freedom for people to live as they want without having other people's moral views imposed on them. Liberal with a big L means a belief in a mixed economy without the dogma from right or left and this philosophy attracts a lot of liberals.

Sorry this isn't terribly relevant to the US but I thought this was a worldwide thread.

[Ozi]

I am not going to buy into this debate about American domestic politics because I really don’t know enough about it and it really is a pointless exercise in this forum. However, I will provide some food for thought for those truly interested in current (post WWII) world politics.

It must be remembered that the US is probably the only country that came out of WWll unscathed financially and they have been using that financial power to control and dictate many, many world events.  You need to first understand this involvement, interference and to some degree quasi dictatorship of many nations. To name a few:

• Check out the Truman Doctrine;

• How poor or bleak would Russia be today without the sanctions imposed against Russia and their allies in 1948;

• American financial support after the war to Greece and Turkey, which not only led to a change in government in Greece, but the removal of a Monarch;

• Who knows what the middle-east would look like now if Eisenhower didn’t enforce sanctions against their own allies, France, Great Britain and Israel, stopping the invasion of Egypt in 1956 during the Suez Crisis;

• Were sanctions really necessary against Cuba after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991? Only if you wanted to protect the 25 electoral votes coming out of Florida. Based on what’s actually happening now, did it really change or achieve anything except keeping the poor peasant population poorer;

• The US led embargo of products from Rhodesia in 1968? How different would Africa look today?

The list is endless, it involves almost every country in every continent and you need to understand at least some of it before you can judge what’s good, what’s bad and what’s ugly, or whose right and whose wrong.

[Maturin]

Agreed Ozi. It's pointless making sweeping general statements about a country without looking at the whole picture. The ability to analyse that whole picture is something that I don't feel any one person or government is capable of - hence the short-termism and blinkered selfish policies that have been enacted by almost every country and leader throughout history.

It is disappointing to see that people still wilfully confuse socialism with communist totalitarinism and that they still believe that making sweeping pejorative generalisations is a valid form of political debate.

[Ozi]

As I said, it's not my intention to buy into US domestic politics and I only suggested some wider thinking when analysing other countries and the history behind their current status.

However, I can't accept the terminology of communist totalitarianism, they are two totally different concepts. North Korea is not a communist totalitarian state, it's just a totalitarian state. China is not a communist totalitarian state, it was totalitarian state under Mao Zedong, it's now a communist, or more accurately, authoritarian state.

No one ever considered Iraq communist, but under Saddam Hussein, it's was a totalitarian state.

As for confusing socialism and communism, once you remove the word totalitarian, that's not hard to do. Both want to control production, the key difference is how they divide the spoils. Socialism will eventually mutate into it's big brother, communism, as soon as a few people decide they want more than just their fair share under socialism.

Either way, ultimately you take away peoples rights, freedom, property, incentive, turn them into The Borg, which is neither socialist or communist, but totalitarian.

Want a classic example of media propaganda, government interference, all based around power, oil, gas and ideology? The war in the Ukraine. As far as the majority of people in the eastern Ukraine are concerned, they are Russian and don't want to be anything else.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

Both Socialism (in all of its forms) and Communism (in all of its forms) are both State Capitalist systems. This simply means that the State, which also has the coercive force to enforce its laws, also controls the means of production and the means of consumption.

This essentially removes the economic rights of individuals to keep their earnings or to trade in goods unless they are allowed special dispensation and favored by the Almighty State. They become subjects of a powerful Monopoly.

There was a time when American colonists were prohibited from manufacturing finished goods like shovels, prohibited from buying tea that was shipped on anything other than English ships, and prohibited from holding government offices unless they tithed to the Anglican Church, the state sanctioned religion. That, too, was State Capitalism (often known as Mercantilism.)

There is nothing new about government leaders seeking to usurp the economic or religious rights of individuals. A state with that much power, even if given it by a democratic political system, will ultimately become absolutely corrupt.

[Linked]

Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.  Isn't that correct

[Ozi]

Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.  Isn't that correct

Absolutely. Sadly, whether socialist, capitalist, communist, totalitarian or whatever,  we all have our own versions of Kim Jong-un, just some do it overtly, some very covertly. 

[BBsq69]

However, I can't accept the terminology of communist totalitarianism, they are two totally different concepts. North Korea is not a communist totalitarian state, it's just a totalitarian state. China is not a communist totalitarian state, it was totalitarian state under Mao Zedong, it's now a communist, or more accurately, authoritarian state.

No one ever considered Iraq communist, but under Saddam Hussein, it's was a totalitarian state.

As for confusing socialism and communism, once you remove the word totalitarian, that's not hard to do. Both want to control production, the key difference is how they divide the spoils. Socialism will eventually mutate into it's big brother, communism, as soon as a few people decide they want more than just their fair share under socialism.

Either way, ultimately you take away peoples rights, freedom, property, incentive, turn them into The Borg, which is neither socialist or communist, but totalitarian.

Yes they are 2 separate terms; the Soviet Union was Communist and Totalitarian but the Totalitarian part even is there immediately or follows very soon because that is the nature of Communism.

The numerous Socialist governments in Western Europe all managed to avoid becoming Communist - the facts stare in you in the face. It's absolutely utter twaddle that they are the same thing. Ah but deniers would  say they weren't true socialists or were social democrats - well tell them that or attend their political meetings. On a technical level this may be true but what is understood by the general population to be socialism is perfectly acceptable to many in Europe, whereas communism is always looked on as extreme. Traditionally West European communist parties looked to the Soviet Union for support, something that the socialist parties however the media and the intelligence services (who have several times tried to bring down a Labour government) most certainly have not.

Besides which when the UK had British Airways, British Leyland, British Petroleum, British Telecom, British Steel etc. a right wing government did nothing to remove them. It was not until Thatcher came along that there industries were privatised and then again not universally successfully and virtually destroyed the industrial base of the country to become a not very balanced service economy. France is more naturally socialist than the UK but never turned to communism although as I mentioned that party did have strong support

In the late 70s and early 80s the Labour Party in the UK already very Socialist became infected with a Trotskyist group called Militant Tendency who were eventually purged. Now history is repeating itself and a lot of this group have rejoined and have inspired a similar group called Momentum - unless the Conservatives make the stupid mistake of entirely abandoning the centre ground this should ensure they stay in power for at the very least the next decade until the cancer of this extreme group is removed or a new party fills the void.

Whilst you could hardly call the Blair government socialist nevertheless it did have the socialist policy of tax credits which despite having just won the election the Conservatives faced such outcry that they reversed their policy of cutting them.

When Communism fell in Russia a few people did decide to take more than there fair share leaving them ultimately with Putin's increasingly right-wing dictatorship so make of that what you will.

[Maturin]

Modern examples of socialism are hardly state capitalist systems.  For example look at Germany, one of the largest economies, France and the UK albeit on a lesser scale, as well as many smaller countries like Sweden that have things such as: universal health care that is free at the point of need, government control and strong regulation of their banking system (the UK being an obvious exception here), collective workers' bargining agreements across various industries, a healthy practicle and respectful working arrangment between unions and employers, state guarenteed holiday, sickness and maternity pay, a generous holiday allowance (in comparison to the US).

These are hardly one party countries in which all economic endeavour is carried out for the profit of the state itself or the state capitalist system you're seeming to reduce them to. Modern socialism protects things that should be regarded as a universal right.  All of the above should be universal rights to citizens but where does our right to expect such things come from?  From our taxes of course.

Do people really believe that our tax money should be collected by our governments and then redistributed to private companies and their shareholders so that they can make a profit from: our sickness, our prison systems, our infrastucture, our utilities, public transport et al?  If that is the case then what is a government for?  Why don't we just accept that corporations really do control everything and let's just give our tax money directly to them.  We're in the begining stages of a corporatocracy and for some reason people don't seem to really mind that our politicians, especially pretty much every Republican and every UK Tory is allowing themselves to be bought by corporations who's only motivator is profit.

It is a vote about how we wish to govern ourselves and our shared resources. A vote for any Republican candidate is a vote that says, you don't care that democracy has finally died and that you believe that we're all just parts of a machine that exists to keep people like the Koch brothers in power.

Sanders is a democratic socialist, of course that doesn't mean he wants state capitalism, it's silly to think that. A vote for him would give him the power to lessen the hold on American democracy enjoyed by corporations, the media, the banking sector and powerful individuals. His modern, European styled, socialist ideas will redistribute wealth primarily from corporations that have enjoyed huge preferential tax breaks from their payrolled politicians.

I'd be very interested in anyone's comments that directly addresses why they think that Sanders' plan to get big money out of politics and raise the living standards of low and middle income Americans is a bad thing but, again, misrepresenting modern socialism doesn't really add to the debate.

[Ozi]

"Modern socialism protects things that should be regarded as a universal right.  All of the above should be universal rights to citizens but where does our right to expect such things come from?  From our taxes of course."

That kind of stupid, pathetic and idiotic statement is sadly what I have now come to expect.

I've worked all my life, full-time since I was 20, part-time when at university, even had jobs on when I was at school. Used to be up at 5 am to do a paper round before going to school.

So what do I get from the taxes I've paid all my working life? Absolutely sweet fuck all.

- Free healthcare? I have to pay for private health cover to make sure my family get to see a doctor when they need one. My wife recently needed to see a specialist, my private heath got her booked within 2 days, public health, paid by my taxes would have taken 6 months.

- Free education? I had to pay for private schools for my kids, to make sure they weren't stuck in classes with one teacher with up to 35 - 40 students. Yes the government claims better ratios than that, but they even include the fucking administrators and cleaners when they add up all the staff employed, all the non teaching elements.

- Infrastructure? What, like the roads that are so badly deteriorated they actually damage my vehicles with potholes and broken up edges and are responsible for many accidents.

- Power and Water? As a percentage of my income, those services now cost me 500% more than they did 20 years ago, because the governments have not maintained them.

- Pension? Despite compulsory superannuation, only about 20% of the population will have an income above what the government considers the poverty line.

So who does get my taxes?

- All the alcoholics and drug addicts that clog up our healthcare system.

- All the unemployed that collect benefits, breeding like fucking rabbits because the more kids, the more benefit, the bigger the free house.

- The so called political asylum seekers who contributed nothing to our society and bleed it dry when they get here.

- And lets not forget the fucking politicians who line their pockets and guarantee themselves a healthy retirement package.

I really should have known better than to even bother getting involved in this kind of discussion, with all the armchair experts who obviously live in Utopian world, or are probably just as doped up as the fuckwits clogging up our hospital corridors.

[BBsq69]

Ozi, most people work really hard but they can't afford private education for their kids or private health care to jump the queues. However you're not being stopped from doing this so what is your problem.

You pay taxes just like everyone else, except the rich and multinational companies, but it only pays for a certain standard of service for everyone. If you believe the service should be excellent for everyone then that requires more taxes which people are unwilling to pay.

In the UK power prices have gone up at a ridiculous rate and are far higher than they were when the companies were in state hands. There are many reasons but one of them is that they have duty to their shareholders, enshrined in law, to do right by them before doing right by their 63 million customers. They have also pretty much formed a cartel. The railway network which was privatised is pretty much paid for by the government because the private companies were appalling bad and demanded money from the government otherwise they would stopped providing services. This is fine for them but very bad for the economy if people can't get to work.

For the UK contrary to media rubbish, the government figures show that immigration is a net benefit to the UK, that welfare fraud accounts for less than 1% compared to a massive deficit in tax revenue. Most people are on PAYE so don't have the luxury of fiddling their taxes like many of the better off clearly do - most of them are not breaking the law but are aggressively minimising their tax bill. The UK Inland Revenue has several thousand names from a bank in Switzerland where UK citizens were hiding their wealth - there has been 1 prosecution!

People who don't play a sport are armchair experts if they comment on that sport but I don't think that phrase translates too well in other walks of life. Are you a professional economist and even if you are what's that saying "Put 10 economists in a room and you'll get 11 opinions"?

However I do sympathise with you over the unfairness of benefits. I've paid in a lot more than most people but ultimately through various reasons I'll get much less out and as ordinary person that kind of pisses me off. If you have a small amount of savings you get no benefits which surely does discriminate of people who have attempted to look after themselves - this is where government takes advantage.

[Maturin]

It doesn't take a professional economist to see that what he's talking about and what I'm talking about are totally different experiences.

"That kind of stupid, pathetic and idiotic statement is sadly what I have now come to expect." Well, I could parrot that simply by stating, "that kind of stupid, pathetic and idiotic statement is sadly what I have now come to expect," and adding, "whenever his world view is challenged."  All you've done is moan about the consequences of people's taxes not being used correctly.

BBsq9 has stated the figures for benefit cheats, the net gain a nation recieves from immigrants and they are incontestable. I'd add to that that in the UK, I don't have figures for the US or Australia, that the tax shortfall, due to corporate tax breaks and legal loopholes to tax evasion amounted to 34 billion pounds last year.  Taxes should give governments the money and means to make sure all the things you've listed are working correctly, surely you get that, right?

If you have a smilar situation in Australia and I don't see why it should be so different, then the shortfall in tax revenue is the reason why your infrastructure is shit, the reason why school costs have gone up whilst education standards have gone down, the reason why hospitals are strained to breaking point, the reason why utilities are fucked but get more expensive every year.

I can go into more detail if you like, it seems to me that you are failing to see how the taxation system should work and how the reality of it means that the taxation system has been turned into a method to assest-strip nations in order to keep shareholders happy.  This has once again made you aggressively spout nonsense. I'm no armchair expert, it's really not hard to research it for yourself. Try it.

I for one am willing to pay more taxes but I demand that they are used correctly for the betterment of the nation and its people. How is that Utopian?  How is what is actually happening now not distopian?  It is fucked and the sooner people realise this then the sooner we can start actually doing fucking somethng about it instead of having the people who see what's going on having to fight against the people who should know better yet can't be bothered to open their flippin eyes and are happy to be the unwitting buffer between the people and the pricks who are running the world into the ground.