So You're a Socialist...

[lord of the mark]

no the wikipidea article is foobar.

Look at this under "Social democracy"

"The period 1914-1962 in Europe was dominated by World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, culminating in the construction of the Berlin Wall. Although social democrats had been influential in this period, and a moderate breed of Eurocommunism had developed, in general nationalist, fundamentalist and capitalist forces were seen as allies of the United States, and there was some suspicion of Social Democrats as potentially "soft on Communism" and seeking to implement something like Stalinism in Western Europe. "


First the US didnt really have anything to do with domestic European politics till 1945.

Second in post-45, not only were some domestic US social democrats of the SDUSA variety fairly strong anti-communist, but IIRC the CIA had some contact with European Social Democrats, especially in France and Italy.

Thirdly - Eurocommunism didnt begin to emerge till the end of this period. It first really came to light when the Italian communists refused to support the invasion of Czechoslovakia. I dont think ANY major west european communist party objected to the invasion of Hungary. Perhaps the author is getting Titoism and Eurocommunism confused?

I havent read all the rest, but this doesnt bode well.

[lord of the mark]

take a look at this


http://www.socialdemocrats.org/

[chequita guevara]

I didn't follow that link in Wikipedia.

[Kropotkin]

Well, firstly, it didn't say that the US did have something to do with domestic european policies, did it? Secondly, it states that SD:s where suspected of being "soft on communism", not that they where. Thridly, I tend to agree with you. The term eurocommunism really seems missplaced for the period at hand.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
take a look at this


http://www.socialdemocrats.org/

Schactmanite!

[Az]

I'll reply tomorrow. It's 1AM, 6 hours of sleep await me.

[*End Is Forever*]

Politics and Cows


SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and
puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by
ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as
many eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take

care of them, and sells you the milk.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them but the
government takes all the milk.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

MILITARISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEOMCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to
tell you who gets the milk.

BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep brains and they go
mad. The government doesn't do anything.

EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you
can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them.
After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk

down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out the forms accounting for
the missing cows.

ENIVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking
or killing them.

TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies

they ever existed. Milk is banned.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of ownership is
a symbol of the phallocentric warmongering intolerant past) two
differently-aged but no less valuable to society bovines of non-specific

gender.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. (SOUND - EVERYONE's A WINNER)

[Pekka]

Well, there are many forms of Socialism. What we here try to do is I think we try to create a situation where all citizens are equal and have the same opportunities, and then kicks in the capitalist integration to socialism where we try to have those people who have had equal opportunities to further go with that and pursue their dreams.

It's like a system where you try to get the benefits of the socialist system with the healthcare and stuff, and then the capitalist thing too.

The problem is it's hella expensive system and if it crumbles, it shows its effects on everyone equally . Like no healthcare for anyone properly anymore, like in here. Or, the situation where you have 'public transportation', but only in big cities and it's more expensive than driving your own car, and having one of the highest prices of gasoline in the world it's pretty funny.

All in all, a good idea for sure, and COULD work if there would be enough money to do it. So it's likely to work only partially, and what you have is a system that is not really socialist but only poor in that way it should be rich to work.

[Whaleboy]

I'm with EiF!

[*End Is Forever*]

Surely you meant to post that in the terrorism thread.

[Pekka]

european democracy

[joncha]

Here's my link on a basic definition of socialism.

[SKILORD]

Socialism is rejection of the equality of man.

Socialism is the use of force to promote charity.

Socialism is a justification for sloth.

[Bosh]

This should keep you busy for a while:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

[SKILORD]

In addition, Socialism is not even good in theory.

No theory which carries the fundamental pressure of force can be good. Government does everything by force therefore the only thing that is good 'in theory' is Anarchy, under which the populace would take personal responsibility, give regularly to charity, not steal, murder or attempt to disrupt order, and yet allow their freedoms to be without arbitrary consequences.