If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   What a socialist state with high taxes actually looks like. Or, in other words, here's an article about Finland   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 339
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

22964 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 May 2009 at 3:22 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



339 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-04 01:25:55 AM  
spamdog: Says who?

Says China, the USSR, Wall Street, basic information theory?
 
2009-05-04 01:26:16 AM  
Subby here.

The thing I got from the article, and from this thread, is basically this. You guys have heard of the 'American Dream', right? A mistake a lot of Americans make is that the 'American Dream' is more like a universal dream that can be best achieved in America.

As the article shows, that's not quite accurate. The American Dream and the Finnish Dream are two separate ideals. The American Dream is a lot of money, a lot of success, streets paved with gold. The Finnish Dream is a quiet modestly-sized cabin on the lake.

To each his own.
 
2009-05-04 01:29:16 AM  
jofny: Says China, the USSR, Wall Street, basic information theory?

So, you know nothing then?
 
2009-05-04 01:29:51 AM  
WhyteRaven74: jofny: very capitalist, Nokia.

Nokia isn't the only major Finnish company that does lots of international business.


No, it's not. But my point wasn't really to outline the in-depth specifics of their economy...only that when (in the past) Finland hasn't had large, global companies which are disproportionally successful when compared to the rest of their businesses, the model and economy have struggled to keep up.
 
2009-05-04 01:33:42 AM  
spamdog: So, you know nothing then?

Right. That's it. The guy who responds with "Who says?" and "So you know nothing?" without contributing a thing obviously is the correct one.

(Also, I forgot to add "the people I met who worked and lived in Finland when I lived there say so"...but I didn't think I needed to jam it down your throat.)
 
2009-05-04 01:37:15 AM  
jofny: (Also, I forgot to add "the people I met who worked and lived in Finland when I lived there say so"...but I didn't think I needed to jam it down your throat.)

Oh, so some people say so, huh?

Right.

In my experience there's a whole lot of waffling about how "socialism won't work in America" but very little hard fact to back it up. Just some vague allusions to communist regimes and nothing else. That's not proof at all.
 
2009-05-04 01:39:32 AM  
Gosling: The American Dream and the Finnish Dream are two separate ideals. The American Dream is a lot of money, a lot of success, streets paved with gold. The Finnish Dream is a quiet modestly-sized cabin on the lake.

Completely agree that they're two different ideals (I got the same feeling from living there and my wife, who is Finnish, still philosophically tilts that way even after 10 years here)....

I'd suggest, though, that cultural ideals stem from environment and situation and the US's material ideals differ from Finland's because their cost, availability, and sustainability are different between the two places. If Finland had different resources and was located elsewhere, it would probably have different ideals. (?)
 
2009-05-04 01:41:05 AM  
Let me get this straight...you mean we can either slave over the elite and think that one day we might become one of them or build a society where we distribute the great excess of the few to the entire populous thus making everyone's life a lot more enjoyable.

That's filthy communism, that's evil!
 
2009-05-04 01:55:36 AM  
spamdog: In my experience there's a whole lot of waffling about how "socialism won't work in America" but very little hard fact to back it up. Just some vague allusions to communist regimes and nothing else. That's not proof at all.

Didn't say a word about socialism in America. This isn't a political opinion.

What I am saying is that there isn't sufficient bandwidth or efficiency when C&C is overly centralized to support those systems at scale. As they get larger, they need to push more and more elements of decision making closer to the nodes or face untenable latency in the face of rapidly changing variables. Ultimately, everyone ends up with a hybrid approach...with truly successful, large systems and organizations centralizing some components and relying on nodal decisions for others. (As the US does and as China seems to moving closer to.)



If you "haven't seen" any of this, you haven't looked very hard.
 
2009-05-04 01:56:19 AM  
spamdog: jofny: (Also, I forgot to add "the people I met who worked and lived in Finland when I lived there say so"...but I didn't think I needed to jam it down your throat.)

Oh, so some people say so, huh?

Right.

In my experience there's a whole lot of waffling about how "socialism won't work in America" but very little hard fact to back it up. Just some vague allusions to communist regimes and nothing else. That's not proof at all.


you know who else liked to gain support by alluding to communist regimes?
 
2009-05-04 01:57:20 AM  
jofny: Ultimately, everyone ends up with a hybrid approach...with truly successful, large systems and organizations centralizing some components and relying on nodal decisions for others. (As the US does and as China seems to moving closer to.)

Well, shiat. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Socialism, not communism.
 
2009-05-04 02:01:29 AM  
spamdog: jofny: Ultimately, everyone ends up with a hybrid approach...with truly successful, large systems and organizations centralizing some components and relying on nodal decisions for others. (As the US does and as China seems to moving closer to.)

Well, shiat. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Socialism, not communism.


Huh? That doesn't make any sense? Communism is a political label. Socialism is a market/economy label.
 
2009-05-04 02:05:20 AM  
WhyteRaven74: jofny: very capitalist, Nokia.

Nokia isn't the only major Finnish company that does lots of international business.


KONE is another one that pops in my mind. They make elevators and escalators.

Here's a little reading for the dipshiats who don't understand Finland's economy and think it's something like Soviet Russia.

Link
 
2009-05-04 02:05:45 AM  
jofny: spamdog: jofny: Ultimately, everyone ends up with a hybrid approach...with truly successful, large systems and organizations centralizing some components and relying on nodal decisions for others. (As the US does and as China seems to moving closer to.)

Well, shiat. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Socialism, not communism.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense? Communism is a political label. Socialism is a market/economy label.


communism is a political structure which is vaguely based on socialism....but usually it ends up being a dictatorship.

not exactly a stellar example of socialism at work.

the five day work week, that's a good example of socialism.

or any national park
 
2009-05-04 02:06:37 AM  
If you didn't read the article here it is in a nutshell:

a hit-and-run tourist discovers that Finland is a bland utilitarian place where the outcome of everyones life is taxed into a bland, depressing, dull and suicide-inducing "equality". This results in people living stripped down lives in little boxes with wimpy cars and the absence of decent personal private property such as a modern television since the fruit of their labor is stolen by the state to such a large degree that "vacations" consist of spending time in a small hut in the woods. They get to spend up to five weeks in their backwards little huts because socialist countries can never achieve high levels of employment. The way they artificially inflate levels of employment is to give workers huge amounts of time off. This forces companies to hire more of them to maintain levels of production which results in these companies being less competitive in the world markets. The tourist, who finds a Canadian and an American who both enjoy living of the efforts of others in this frozen, alcohol-fueled hell is relieved to return to a vibrant world were people are able to go as far in life as their talent and ambition will take them, even if it is New York City. The End.
 
2009-05-04 02:07:39 AM  
jofny: Gosling: The American Dream and the Finnish Dream are two separate ideals. The American Dream is a lot of money, a lot of success, streets paved with gold. The Finnish Dream is a quiet modestly-sized cabin on the lake.

Completely agree that they're two different ideals (I got the same feeling from living there and my wife, who is Finnish, still philosophically tilts that way even after 10 years here)....

I'd suggest, though, that cultural ideals stem from environment and situation and the US's material ideals differ from Finland's because their cost, availability, and sustainability are different between the two places. If Finland had different resources and was located elsewhere, it would probably have different ideals. (?)


No doubt that a different historical/geopolitical/environmental situation would yield different results. To take a fatalist view point: remarkably little our our current situation is our doing.

Nonetheless, I don't think "to each his own" is necessarily a good strategy for public policy. I'm all for experimentation between states and don't believe there is a single "right" system. However, I firmly believe in the classical liberal doctrine that all people should be granted Equality of Opportunity. This of course is an impossibility, but serves as an important goal to work toward. Current trends in the US have directly and indirectly worked against this concept, and the rhetoric spewed by the GOP concerning social programs has been ridiculously misguided and misinformed. Issues of social justice are fundamentally important and constitute the most basic of moral issues. The debate we should be having is not whether we should be striving towards Equality of Opportunity, but what are the best ways to achieve it.
 
2009-05-04 02:09:09 AM  
People_are_Idiots: Another example of a "good" socialist state please?

/pic from North Korea
//Seriously, any LARGE countries with a high standard of living and wealthy people that have socialistic values?



Just for kicks, be sure to read "Eat the Rich" by P.J. O'Rourke:

Sweden = Good Socialsim
Cuba = Bad Socialism

USA = Good Capitalism
Albania = Bad Capitalism
 
2009-05-04 02:14:40 AM  
deanayer: If you didn't read the article here it is in a nutshell:

a hit-and-run tourist discovers that Finland is a bland utilitarian place where the outcome of everyones life is taxed into a bland, depressing, dull and suicide-inducing "equality". This results in people living stripped down lives in little boxes with wimpy cars and the absence of decent personal private property such as a modern television since the fruit of their labor is stolen by the state to such a large degree that "vacations" consist of spending time in a small hut in the woods. They get to spend up to five weeks in their backwards little huts because socialist countries can never achieve high levels of employment. The way they artificially inflate levels of employment is to give workers huge amounts of time off. This forces companies to hire more of them to maintain levels of production which results in these companies being less competitive in the world markets. The tourist, who finds a Canadian and an American who both enjoy living of the efforts of others in this frozen, alcohol-fueled hell is relieved to return to a vibrant world were people are able to go as far in life as their talent and ambition will take them, even if it is New York City. The End.


Of course that nutshell doesn't have your own personal bias towards it in it at all now right?

/snark off
//maybe you're a troll...it's so hard to tell anymore
 
2009-05-04 02:17:49 AM  
I'm not sure why everyone keeps making this a political discussion. It's not. I haven't mentioned either communism or socialism. The closest I've gotten is calling Nokia's business capitalist - which it is. I don't care where your political beliefs swing, but systems like Finland's don't handle scale well. If there is a heavily centrally managed economy that handles size well, the world hasn't seen it yet.

ROBO-Jesus: Nonetheless, I don't think "to each his own" is necessarily a good strategy for public policy.

Did anyone say it was? "To each his own" is an incredibly important concept that should be supported, but only when culturally people also realize that "my own good is dependent on the good of others as well as my own."

Neither of the two work without the other.

all people should be granted Equality of Opportunity.

Have I suggested otherwise?

Current trends in the US have directly and indirectly worked against this concept, and the rhetoric spewed by the GOP concerning social programs has been ridiculously misguided and misinformed.

Everyone involved in US politics spews rhetoric. Your choice is who you would rather have bending you over. Even Obama - my god, his DOJ is just as bad as the one before it.

Issues of social justice are fundamentally important and constitute the most basic of moral issues.

Whether a system can functionally handle its information flow is not and will never be a moral question. The question at hand is one of math, not morals.

The debate we should be having is not whether we should be striving towards Equality of Opportunity, but what are the best ways to achieve it.

Isn't that the debate we're having?
 
2009-05-04 02:22:45 AM  
Mrtraveler01: KONE

Regarding Nokia and Finland. My focus on Nokia came from their impact on national GDP:

Nokia increased Finland's GDP by more than 1.5% in 1999 alone. In 2004 Nokia's share of the Finnish GDP was 3.5% and accounted for almost a quarter of Finland's exports in 2003.
 
2009-05-04 02:26:19 AM  
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: communism is a political structure which is vaguely based on socialism....but usually it ends up being a dictatorship.

Socialism is explicitly defined as a system where the means of production are not privately owned.

the five day work week, that's a good example of socialism.

No its not. It's an example of regulation. Regulation is as much socialism as laws against murder are socialism. Regulations ("laws") are intended to protect individuals from one another, including from things such as murder, blackmail, coercion, and exploitation. The five day work week was instituted to protect people from situations where they would become dependent on performing a certain type of labour, but be prohibited from taking any rest from it. Such laws were brought about mostly thanks to labour unions - and labour unions were despised by Communists as preventing the mobilization of the proletariat. If that doesn't convince you, consider Adam Smith's words on regulation (published sometime before the word "socialism" existed):

"Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed." (read the article for his recommendations on regulating banks).

A good example of socialism is the bank bailout, where the government has explicitly bought a stake in private firms. By doing this, the government goes against the quintessential principle of "lassize-faire":

The term originated in 17th century France. Under the rule of Louis XIV, France had a centralized, state-managed economy. Virtually all key economic decisions were in the hands of Louis' intendant ("manager" is a better translation than "minister"), Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Colbert directed the country's industries with absolute authority, punishing the disobedient with brutal sanctions. He suppressed what little labour organization there was. He encouraged the creation of giant corporations, and he gave out military contracts, monopolies, subsidies and privileges to those he liked. The corporations grew fat on the proceeds of Louis' incessant wars. France was a sort of Haliburton's Heaven. As a consequence, after a brief boom created by the initial concentration of capital, France's technology and economy stagnated, the gap between rich and poor widened, and those at the bottom starved, just as it has transpired in all such dirigiste regimes.

As France's decline became obvious, a group of smaller entrepreneurs ― the very ones who were most shackled and disadvantaged by Colbert's worship of Big Corporations, approached Colbert with a petition. Colbert demanded to know what subsidies and privileges they wanted. One of their number responded "laissez-nous faire". Leave us alone. Don't favour us with subsidies and privileges. Don't favour anyone with subsidies or privileges. (link)
 
2009-05-04 02:35:40 AM  
jofny: Mrtraveler01: KONE

Regarding Nokia and Finland. My focus on Nokia came from their impact on national GDP:

Nokia increased Finland's GDP by more than 1.5% in 1999 alone. In 2004 Nokia's share of the Finnish GDP was 3.5% and accounted for almost a quarter of Finland's exports in 2003.


Fair enough. Your comments actually are rational and well thought out. Which means they don't belong on Fark.

/better than some of the retarded comments I've read on here
 
2009-05-04 02:36:47 AM  
ROBO-Jesus:

thanks for all the copy and pasting, but i can use wikipedia on my own.

the five day work week was an initiative by labor unions which are (were?) by definition a pooling of labor and therefor a socialist movement.

to say that the government working with industry somehow got all charitable and made this regulation is revisionism at its finest.
 
2009-05-04 02:43:57 AM  
jofny: I'm not sure why everyone keeps making this a political discussion. It's not. I haven't mentioned either communism or socialism. The closest I've gotten is calling Nokia's business capitalist - which it is. I don't care where your political beliefs swing, but systems like Finland's don't handle scale well. If there is a heavily centrally managed economy that handles size well, the world hasn't seen it yet.

Sorry, I was actually agreeing with your statement about environmental conditions, and disagreeing (or expanding upon) Gosling's comments.

Isn't that the debate we're having?

Not really.A large portion of this thread has revolved around arguing over what constitutes socialism and explaining the difference between a "social democracy" like Sweden and a dictatorship like Cuba and basketcase states like Zimbabwe.
 
2009-05-04 02:50:14 AM  
Pro-American republican fools can't look up information to save themselves.

While you're biatching about Finland's socialism and ungodly tax rate, the majority of you pay the same percentage in taxes every year yet you do not receive health care, university tuition, extended paid maternity and paternity leave, unemployment assistance, vocational retraining, housing subsidies, etc etc.

The Finnish dream is not the American dream, it is better. Live as a community, not as an individual. Who said "no man is a rock"? America seems to be a big pile of gravel to me.

P.S. - When Finnish students are finished with 8th grade they can speak four (minimum three) languages: Finnish, Swedish, English, (German, Estonian, or Russian).
 
2009-05-04 03:06:05 AM  
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: thanks for all the copy and pasting, but i can use wikipedia on my own.

Your welcome :)

the five day work week was an initiative by labor unions which are (were?) by definition a pooling of labor and therefor a socialist movement.

Labour unions are not inherently socialist, either in practice or theory. Remember: socialism refers to the public ownership of the "means of production". Labour, in Marxist terminology is considered an MoP - but labour unions do not put labour under public control anymore than corporations put companies under "public control". They are both collections of private interests. Marxists saw potential in labour unions, but also recognized that if they were successful in bringing about better working conditions, the communist advent would never occur.

to say that the government working with industry somehow got all charitable and made this regulation is revisionism at its finest.

That's not what I claimed at all. I think we both know the history of labour unions, and the struggles faced. I agree my wording was a bit vague, but I was simply illustrating how we can view the five-day work week as a public-good law, and to explain the rationale labour movements had in fighting for it.
 
2009-05-04 03:33:55 AM  
SlothB77 2009-05-03 08:32:42 PM
what a surprisingly sad article.

"you can never get rich in Finland." that's sad there is a whole country where people cannot live up to their potential. they can never aspire. they can never achieve. there is no optimism. what good is all the free health care and education if it all goes to waste? and it is so sad about the lack of progress and lack of innovation coming out of Finland.
No desire for progress, for innovation, for science, technology. no demand for it, definitely no supply of it. this is recommended to us as our future, as what we should become? modest cabins in the woods with no aspiration, no innovation, no individuality, no freedom.

so sad.



Linus Torvalds would like a word with you,
Mister I'm So Sad Troll.

So would the Finnish Armed Forces.

And the vocational schools in the larger cities.

And the University of Helsinki.

You want some citations, pal!??

HERE. I'm gonna back my word up because I owe it to my friends.


How about this? (new window)
Or this!? (another new window)
You want some more?? (one more new window)
And how about this too!! (last new window)

Now go blow your nose.
 
2009-05-04 03:45:04 AM  
ROBO-Jesus: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: thanks for all the copy and pasting, but i can use wikipedia on my own.

Your welcome :)

the five day work week was an initiative by labor unions which are (were?) by definition a pooling of labor and therefor a socialist movement.

Labour unions are not inherently socialist, either in practice or theory. Remember: socialism refers to the public ownership of the "means of production". Labour, in Marxist terminology is considered an MoP - but labour unions do not put labour under public control anymore than corporations put companies under "public control". They are both collections of private interests. Marxists saw potential in labour unions, but also recognized that if they were successful in bringing about better working conditions, the communist advent would never occur.

to say that the government working with industry somehow got all charitable and made this regulation is revisionism at its finest.

That's not what I claimed at all. I think we both know the history of labour unions, and the struggles faced. I agree my wording was a bit vague, but I was simply illustrating how we can view the five-day work week as a public-good law, and to explain the rationale labour movements had in fighting for it.



ok, ill copy and paste now.
socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

if you look at the means of production and distribution as being the actual workers (which it is, btw), labor unions are very much a form of socialism.

i think you might be confusing normal socialism with marxist socialism, which didnt come around until later on by which time the french and english had already laid the groundwork.
 
2009-05-04 04:02:50 AM  
Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: ok, ill copy and paste now.
socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


Hey, I already copy+pasted that! Anyway, we're in complete agreement there. Too often socialism gets confused with regulations or social programs which have nothing to do with the means of production.

if you look at the means of production and distribution as being the actual workers (which it is, btw), labor unions are very much a form of socialism.

Yes, as I said: Labour is (in Marxian terms, which I don't necessarily agree with), considered an MoP. However, remember "the means of production are owned and controlled by the community as a whole". Labour unions are not public bodies - though they are legislated and regulated by the government (just as corporations are), they are ultimately responsible only to their members, not to the public at large.

i think you might be confusing normal socialism with marxist socialism, which didnt come around until later on by which time the french and english had already laid the groundwork.

I wasn't aware that there was a non-Marxist form of socialism. Looking up the origin of the term suggests you are right. That said, I'm not quite sure what the implications of this are. If the definition we are going by is still "the means of production are not privately owned", then the point is moot. If the definition now is spread to include any socially-progressive activity, I can't argue your logic, but I will say that for purely semantic reasons, I prefer the more popular and more precise Marxist term.
 
2009-05-04 04:02:58 AM  
Came for the pony trekking and camping.
Leaving disappointed.

/How could Fark miss an opportunity for a MP thread in favor of a political theory thread?
 
2009-05-04 05:37:07 AM  
balancing act: Came for the pony trekking and camping.
Leaving disappointed.

/How could Fark miss an opportunity for a MP thread in favor of a political theory thread?


Or just watching tv.
 
2009-05-04 05:38:54 AM  
ROBO-Jesus:
There is nothing in there about progressive tax systems .


Progressive tax systems are a communist goal. Hence to the left of socialism
 
2009-05-04 07:07:02 AM  
really enjoying the thread...

rpod.ru

/hot
//Finland rocks
 
2009-05-04 07:26:33 AM  
I make around 30 000 euros annually, dunno how much that is in American peso.
Anyways, I pay around 20% taxes, which hardly seems like crippling, unfair and evil amount.
The more you earn, the higher the tax.
If I made like 15 000 euros annually, I would pay like 12%, and if I made 60 000 I would pay somewhere around 30 - 35%.
Finnish are not suicidal and alcoholic because of the taxes, but because it is part of the national character in which you grow up.
Sweden has pretty much the same system, and they are all cheerio and not into doing themselves in.
The Danes have the same system, and then some, like crazy taxes, and they keep on being the happiest nation on earth in like all sorts of studies.
Oh, and I could afford a SUV, but you know, tattooing "I have small penis" on my forehead is cheaper and just as effective to drive the point home.
 
2009-05-04 12:54:38 PM  
People_are_Idiots: Another example of a "good" socialist stalinist state please?


/pic from North Korea
//Seriously, any LARGE countries with a high standard of living and wealthy people that have socialistic values?


socialistic values? um... France, Germany...
 
2009-05-04 01:10:38 PM  
Mrtraveler01: balancing act: Came for the pony trekking and camping.
Leaving disappointed.

/How could Fark miss an opportunity for a MP thread in favor of a political theory thread?

Or just watching tv.


THANK YOU !
 
2009-05-04 05:01:15 PM  
ROBO-Jesus: communistsarestupid: There are no non-socialist politicians in Congress or the White House.

Every one of them supports socialist programs like welfare, social security and medicare.

Obama is far to the left of them...


Seriously. are you this stupid?

SOCIALISM does not equal Social Programs

Socialism has a very specific meaning:
so⋅cial⋅ism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Get that?: advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
.


So, let's take a look at things so far...

Huge amounts of government money with conditions attached (governement control) of the banking and insurance systems?

Check. That covers the "of capital" part. (obama)

huge amounts of government money with conditions attached (geovernment control) of the largest industry in the U.S. ie. the auto industry?

Check. That covers a big chunk of the "production" part. (obama)

Largest acquisition of government land made under a democrat president?

Check. That covers the "land" part. (clinton)

I'd have to say that it seems one party, the current president in particular, is definitely following the marxist theory and moving us toward communism more than the other.


And now, the Finntroll...

www.legrandmix.com


Video Link

Oh! I almost forgot...

Mustakrakish

/That's brutal
 
2009-05-04 07:16:04 PM  
texastag: So, let's take a look at things so far...

Huge amounts of government money with conditions attached (governement control) of the banking and insurance systems?

Check. That covers the "of capital" part. (obama)


Though I agree with you that the bailout is essentially socialist, I disagree that it's the "conditions attached" thing that makes it so. Government regulations (i.e. laws) are not socialist. Adam Smith favoured banking regulations for chrissakes (again, see above). The thing that makes the bailout plan socialist is the fact that it's favouring one industry above others.

huge amounts of government money with conditions attached (geovernment control) of the largest industry in the U.S. ie. the auto industry?

Check. That covers a big chunk of the "production" part. (obama)


Same answer as above. The problem here is the muddling of what is public and what is private.

Largest acquisition of government land made under a democrat president?

Check. That covers the "land" part. (clinton)


The largest acquistion of government land was the Louisiana Purchase under Jefferson. Sheesh, I'm not even American and I know that.

That said, there is nothing inherently socialist about government owning land, because land in and of itself isn't a means of production. A public park is not a "means of production". What is socialism by this definition is the government giving away public land to favoured industries (i.e. mining, forestry).

I'd have to say that it seems one party, the current president in particular, is definitely following the marxist theory and moving us toward communism more than the other.

You're a complete moron if you believe this. Both American parties have strong traditionally socialist elements, a tradition which began with Regan. However, the most socialist party in America - the party obsessed with blurring the lines between public and private through corporate welfare, favoritism, big government agencies, and the military-industrial complex, are the neoconservative Republicans.


Recently, Conservatism has shifted its attention to the dismantling of American democracy and moral principles. Conservatives now openly promote concentration camps and torture. Their Patriot Act violated many of America's hard-won civil liberties, and now, even more totalitarian legislation is poised to destroy fundamental protections, such as habeas corpus ---- the heritage of a thousand years of human progress. It must be understood that when people like George W. Bush use words like "freedom", or "democracy", they are using them in exactly the same kind of double-speak mendacity as Lenin or Stalin did.

For ultimately, it is submission to enslavement that the Conservative movement in the United States is all about. American Conservatism is merely the current incarnation of pro-slavery ideology. It bears a much closer relationship to Marxism than anything else, employing much the same techniques of big lies, phony populism, scare tactics, and historicist mysticism, for much the same ends. It is not "conservatism" in the sense of a desire to preserve the past or to go slow on innovation.

No, contemporary American Conservatism is better understood as a nihilistic totalitarian movement, drawing most of its inspiration from dictatorships. It seeks to destroy America's traditions of liberty, equality and democracy. In one generation, it has managed to implement a good deal of this agenda. Not surprisingly, the reputation of the United States among the people of the world has plummeted.

Link
 
2009-05-05 03:47:19 AM  
(reads Robo-Jesus' latest post)

(throws up)

(cries)
 
Displayed 39 of 339 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report