The Socialistic Shit-Case

[lucy]

Ah, yes. The country that does more to help people than any other. The country that led the fight to get relief into Myanmar during their recent calamity. The country that leaps to send searchers and doctors and workers to countries destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

The first world doesn't help the third. We don't help, we exploit. Not as brutal as in colonial days, today it's more subtle: Closing our borders for agricultural products so a couple of American sugar farmers can have a good living is just one of many examples. Same with rice, meat, just about every agricultural product is protected by taxes in the western civ, while we demand from the developing countries that they open their borders for our services and technological products. There's a good reason why Brazil, India and some African countries brought down the newest round of the World Trading Organization talks.

About sending doctors: Screw that. Screw that big time. In fact what happens right now is that America, Britain, Canada and to a lesser extent other countries of the western civilization are actually draining medical personnel from developing countries such as Ghana and Malawi. There are more Ghanese nurses working outside of Ghana than there are in Ghana, same with Malawian doctors.

True, far too many Americans think they are better than anyone else. So, too, do people of other countries. Most people believe their country is the best. It's taught to us from birth. But don't include me in them. I've seen the limitations of my country. Don't blame the people or the country, blame the politicians. They are why people hate us!

Umm, now i could say that the people and the country get the politicians they elected (or deserve), but that would be cheap. It's still true, though.

[Thorne]

Umm, now i could say that the people and the country get the politicians they elected (or deserve), but that would be cheap. It's still true, though.

I agree to some extent. But in many cases it always seems to be a choice between bad and worse. There are very few independent politicians any more. They all have some sort of heavy, business backing, which generally taints there terms in office. I suppose I could blame my lack of interest in politics in general, but in my experience it really doesn't seem to matter. We're stuck with the people that big business (for want of a better term) foists upon us.

[lucy]

Yeah, sometimes, when i look at the candidates i can vote for i feel as if i have to choose between a dog turd and a heap of cowshit too

[Duke Cador]

Why is so that British girls are so keen to be pregnant?
I don't think they are. I think they just enjoy having sex, for the same reason many feamles here do.

Why is preteen sex so normal in Britain?
Are we talking about preteen sex or sex under the legal age? I would like to see some statistics to support your claim that it is normal. It may not be unusual, it may be on the rise but normal is another matter.

But to answer the question I think fashion and culture is probably the driving force. When you have rock star role models singing about sex and a fashion industry selling sexually provocative clothes, make up etc. etc. it is no surprise. Young people are very impressionable and considered not competent to decide for themselves (hence no vote) so is it not for those in power or with power to influence them in positive rather than negative ways.

Government pays the pregnant girls and families with single mothers.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. You say it as if the girls are being given a reward or financial incentive to be pregnant. The money is not for the girls. The money is for the child and paid to whoever is repsonsible for the child. If the child were taken away from its mother the mother would reeive no child support.

It is a very socialistic Idea. It is just like the idea of Universal Health care.
The child, as a British citizen, has the right to food, shelter, healthcare, education and justice. To my mind that is not socialist it is the noble and right path to follow. The concept of nobless oblige, which requires the haves to help the have nots, was around well before socialism. And the concept of charity and helping those less fortunate is to be found in all the great religions of the world and has been with us for a couple of thousand of years.

So who dig the pit? Socialists did it.
I am fairly confident that the rich man who hates paying tax and always votes right wing would get his bean counter to work out that injections cost less than child support payments. The idea of injecting contraceptives to prevent unwanted prregnancy is, I suspect, a policy that right wing parties and voters could support.

How you make the leap from the injections to socialists baffles me. Yes, it may have been introduced by the Labour Party but calling the New Labour Party socialist is like calling the Democrat Party socialist.

The religious socialism exclaimed sacrifice of Good Man in favour of the guilty one
The measure is for the purpose of reducing the burden on the good man not to increase it. The good man is texed less by the cost of injections than child support. And don't forget the child support is not for the guilty mother but the innocent child.

Socialism never works and it always causes havoc
You mean never works like the cradle-to-grave social care in Sweden, a country in havoc. And if socialism never works howcome voters re-elect the Labour Party. Come to that howcome the socialist parties even exist. The answer is because the black-white concept of socialist or capitalist is invalid. No party or government is socialist or capitalist, they are a mixture ot the two. The blend changes with the times and this mix is precisely what the voters decide on in elections.

Also, after being injected, girls will think that ‘Nothing can happen to me because I can’t get pregnant" and that attitude will obviously be dangerous
Yes there is a danger of that but I think the injections are given to girl who are going to do i anyway so its a case of damage limitation rather than preventing under-age sex. And the argument that it is wrong because it may lead to a "nothing can happen to me" attitude is invalid. By that logic we should ban crash helmets or seat belts because the wear may take that attitude and be encouraged to drive recklessly!

The parents hold minimal rights over their kids. They even cannot smack them.
If children are brought up to think that if you are angry with somebody or somebody does wrong then the solution is to resort to physical violence then the danger is clear. Cases of assualt will inevitably rise and should that kid grow up to be a leader he may think that attacking a country for not complying with rules is the solution.

Mr Frearson, who is separated from the boy's mother, found his son in a park 10 minutes later and smacked him once. But a passer-by reported it to Plymouth police and four officers arrived at his house, took him away and locked him in a cell awaiting questioning.
Well done passer-by. Just imagine she did nothing and next day she reads about a boy abducted from the park because a man threatened to smack him again if he did not get into his car.

We don't know all the details of this case. The man may not have been charged. He may have been kept overnight to cool down rather than sending him home to his kid in a rage. Yes probably he is a decent father but how are we to guard against child abuse if we cannot detain and intervew those hitting their son. And maybe if those policemen had been brought up thinking that smacking is the way to stop people breaking rules they would have smacked the father about instead of putting him in a cell!

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill with this injection controversy. Yes it is a debateablle topic but to make it the argument against the evils of socialism or that epitome of socialism Jesus Christ is off the mark. And what may happen if there is no injection or child support. Babies in plastic bags dumped in trash cans or begging on the streets as is often the case in less developed countries without the safety net of a "socialist" welfare system. What solution would you propose to the problem of unwanted pregnacy.

[Duke Cador]

To introduce some levity into a heavy thread, I wonder, if injections lead to more promiscuity would it not then be a good idea for the site to give some cyber injections to submissives. And if females are getting pregnant only to get money should the site give cyber dollars to submissives getting cyber pregnant as a result of cyber sex. I would propose this but for the fear of submissives proposing cyber castration as an alternative way to prevent unwanted cyber pregnancy.

[his_girl_l]

"it is a very socialistic idea. Just like the idea of universal healthcare"

I have never heard or read that Stalinist Russia had a surge of teen pregnancies or was a utopia for single mothers.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL SYSTEMS

This is about wealthy countries dealing with modern social issues to the best of their ability.

In George Bush's neo con USA, in Australia under 12 years of conservative government, there were programs to give teens access to free contraceptives and financial support in the event that they became mothers.

19th century political labels are really not helpful in discussing this issue.

[js207]

The first world doesn't help the third. We don't help, we exploit. Not as brutal as in colonial days, today it's more subtle: Closing our borders for agricultural products so a couple of American sugar farmers can have a good living is just one of many examples. Same with rice, meat, just about every agricultural product is protected by taxes in the western civ, while we demand from the developing countries that they open their borders for our services and technological products. There's a good reason why Brazil, India and some African countries brought down the newest round of the World Trading Organization talks.

Yes, which is one reason I'm strongly opposed to protectionism like this. I would love to see all the tariffs and subsidies eradicated, but there are too many votes to be bought by keeping them.

About sending doctors: Screw that. Screw that big time. In fact what happens right now is that America, Britain, Canada and to a lesser extent other countries of the western civilization are actually draining medical personnel from developing countries such as Ghana and Malawi. There are more Ghanese nurses working outside of Ghana than there are in Ghana, same with Malawian doctors.

No. Absolutely not. I hate this sort of speech, because of the implicit assumption that when someone chooses to move from one place to another this represents an asset - property - being taken from its owner. I may live in the UK, and bear a British passport, but I am not the property of the British government: if I choose to lead a better life elsewhere, that is my decision and my right. I am not being "drained" or "taken": I am under no obligation whatsoever to stay or work here - and any country which I choose for myself is entirely blameless. The notion that being born in Ghana or Malawi should somehow oblige me to stay there rather than lead the best life I can is not just absurd to me, but smacks very much of slavery or feudalism. Not to mention hypocrisy, as you complain about barriers to free movement of goods, then complain about a lack of barriers to movement of people!

[lucy]

No. Absolutely not. I hate this sort of speech, because of the implicit assumption that when someone chooses to move from one place to another this represents an asset - property - being taken from its owner. I may live in the UK, and bear a British passport, but I am not the property of the British government: if I choose to lead a better life elsewhere, that is my decision and my right. I am not being "drained" or "taken": I am under no obligation whatsoever to stay or work here - and any country which I choose for myself is entirely blameless. The notion that being born in Ghana or Malawi should somehow oblige me to stay there rather than lead the best life I can is not just absurd to me, but smacks very much of slavery or feudalism. Not to mention hypocrisy, as you complain about barriers to free movement of goods, then complain about a lack of barriers to movement of people!

I don't say the people should be made to stay in Ghana or wherever, i just wanted to point out that those countries invest a lot of money to educate a nurse or a physician which then goes abroad. It's just another form of draining resources.
They of course have all the right on earth to move. Sorry if i didn't make that clear at all.

[js207]

I don't say the people should be made to stay in Ghana or wherever, i just wanted to point out that those countries invest a lot of money to educate a nurse or a physician which then goes abroad. It's just another form of draining resources.
They of course have all the right on earth to move. Sorry if i didn't make that clear at all.

It seems clear enough, but my objection remains: it is not "draining resources" for them to leave - rather, the countries are failing to attract and retain people they need. It's something I see here, which is probably why it irritates me so much: people talk of a "brain drain" when people like me (the IT profession has been particularly affected, for obvious reasons) and talk of creating obstacles to us leaving, rather than identifying and fixing the root problem: rather than changing the country's laws and systems so we *can't* leave as easily, change them so we don't *want* to leave any more!

(Companies occasionally fall into this trap, too, regarding their customers and staff as an entitlement to be prevented from leaving, rather than people on whom their existence depends, people they need to attract and convince to stay voluntarily. Long term, that never works.)

[lucy]

Fair enough, of course much of the world would be a much better place if people hadn't to leave their home for whatever reason. I'm agree completely with you.
But i was referring to Thorne saying "we send doctors" when in fact it's exactly vice versa. In the end it's poor countries financing the education of doctors and nurses and other professionals for very rich countries.
Ok, now you can say "well, that's global competition". That's not exactly good in my opinion, but i guess it's not completely wrong either. What is wrong, though, is that the first world drains all that educated personnel and then goes around bragging what good guys we all are when we send some relief goods or the odd doc when a catastrophe has occurred or people die of cholera or leprosy. That's hipocrisy at it's best.

[MMI]

[QUOTE=Thorne;793436]

...

Ah, yes. The country that does more to help people than any other. The country that led the fight to get relief into Myanmar during their recent calamity. The country that leaps to send searchers and doctors and workers to countries destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions

...
QUOTE]

Yes, you give so much. Much more than any other individual nation. But, by comparison to your wealth (however you measure it) so much less than many many other countries, and far far less than is needed. A poultice on a tumour.

[Thorne]

Yes, you give so much. Much more than any other individual nation. But, by comparison to your wealth (however you measure it) so much less than many many other countries, and far far less than is needed. A poultice on a tumour.

When I read comments like this I start to understand why so many Americans think we should withdraw from the international community and simply take care of our own.

This country is trillions of dollars in debt, far more debt than we can ever hope to repay. Yet, when a disaster strikes somewhere in the world, anywhere in the world, we are among the first to offer, and provide, aid in whatever form we can: food, medicine, rescue experts, anything that's needed. We don't ask who's going to pay, we don't put political restrictions on our help, we just do it.

And we don't expect the world to love us for it, or to give thanks for it. We don't want people to feel they owe us anything for it. All we ask is that we be respected for what we try to do. But the world seems to want us to do more. Why?

If I buy a meal for a starving man, sure it's only a temporary fix, "A poultice on a tumour" if you will, but it's one more meal than he would have had without me. And if her doesn't have the decency to at least say Thank You, I can live with that. But when he starts screaming at me and complaining about how much more I could do for him, how much more I have to work with, do you honestly believe I should do more? Should I take him home and give him a place to sleep? Give him my clothes? Maybe give him my car, so he won't have to walk so much? Where do I draw the line?

No, I would turn away and write him off as a bad job, but I'd be damned sure less willing to buy a meal for the next starving man I see! Or the next country that suffers a devastating earthquake, or is inundated by a flood, or has any number of other problems. Let them help themselves, I say.

And I would say that for the rest of the world. You don't have to love us. You don't have to admire us. But just a little bit of respect would be nice.

[MMI]

Respect has to be earned, Thorne. It is not a right. And it most certainly does not accrue to any nation simply because it makes half-hearted gestures. Mealy-mouthed assistance creates more resentment than gratitude.

Britain knows that better than most other nations because of its history. It made itself rich on the backs of its colonies and it is still rich, while many of its former colonies are among the poorest nations in the world. Thus, when we make aid payments, we do not receive much thanks: it is regarded as a form of recompense. America is seen by those nations in much the same light as Britain. Not the former colonial power (America has only a few overseas possessions or colonies), but a commercial invader instead. While people hunger in the bush, Gerneral Motors, Bank of America, McDonalds and Coca-Cola make fortunes in the cities, which are then turned into dollars and repatriated to the USA. American companies have extracted at least as much from the third world countries as Britain did and can rightly be considered to have grown even richer as a result. Its moral duty to offer recompense is no less than ours, or France's, Germany's Belgium's or Holland's. It's just that these other nations recognise they have that obligation.

Thus, it does not sound well when you complain that you are not thanked for "all" the aid you give: what thanks did you give (as a nation) for the riches you have approrpiated from those poor countries?

But my comments were not really focused on the duty to repay other obligations, but to respond to real and urgent need. If tiny Luxemburg and Scandinaiva can all give about 1% of their income in the form of international aid, why can the world's richest nations give only a fraction of that amount? Britain and Germany give only 1/3 percent, while Japan and USA can give only 1/6%. OK, USA gives more dollars than anyone else - twice as much as the next country, but it can - and should - give much more if it truly wants to provide real assistance rather than just to salve its conscience. The comments Thorne and other Americans have made here and elsewhere in this connection demonstrate why USA is seen as an extremely mean country.

(And the aid given by Germany, Japan, France and Britain is mean too, I admit that, but we have long ago accepted the fact that everyone hates us for growing rich at their expense.)

As for the statement that you give without strings, think again. More than any other nation, American aid is tied to trade agreements, political concessions and economic preferences. Frequently American aid is repayable and interest-bearing. And how much aid is, in fact, military expenditure. Israel receives vast amounts of military aid from USA - the curent murderous attacks on Palestinian citizens in Gaza benefits from American support, for example. USA supports unpopular governments because it gains an advantage from doing so. it has financed "counter-terrorism" (another word for terrorism) where favoured countries suffer from civil unrest, and it supports "freedom fighters/resistance movements" (more euphemisms for terrorists) where it does not approve of a national government. American aid follows American interests more closely than it goes to areas of need.

You'll get your respect when you deserve it.

[Stealth694]

You do have good points MMI, but lets be honest, the real reason third world countries hate us is because we HAVE and they HAVE NOT.
Look at what happens to these half-hearted gestures, food intended for disaster victims is put on the black market by the local govt. Aid money is skimmed, scammed, and stolen by same govt.
Example: UN brought a load of wheat to an Afgahn village, put it into a building to be distributed the next day, come morning the wheat was gone and NO ONE knew how" Agreed "Forign Aid" is usually used to manipulate these govts but still you think they would invest in their own country?
Example: The Phillipenes, when the Navy closed down Subic Bay, they turned it over to the Phillipene govt. Within 5 yrs the Govt was trying to sell both it and Clark Air force base back to the US, "the deal was killed by a volcano true" but the govt had top quality facilities that they could have converted into anything, but they let both facilities fall apart. WHY??
Maybe the 1st world govt are bastards, but you look at every Colony that was given its freedom, how many profitable colonies are now impovrished because of bad govt. Ask yourself this were they better off as a Colony??
Personal opinion, lets cut Forign Aid for 4 yrs and see what happes???

[MMI]

I think we've moved on a bit from unmarried mothers in Britain living off government handouts, but that's the nature of these kinds of discussion.

Stealth, I liked what you said, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Let's look at the Third World. What does it have going for it? Grinding poverty, hunger and disease. Civil wars where unspeakable acts of cruelty are carried out under the approving eye of some warlord, dictator or guerrilla fighters. Repression by mullahs and shaman/witch doctors.

It also has great mineral wealth - gold, diamonds, oil and so on, but all of that is exploited by the Old and New Worlds (the "West" for convenience), and very little of that wealth finds its way back to the population. There is an elite tier of society, created by the colonial powers, or at least allowed by them to assert itself over the rest of the population - other tribes, cultures or religions and with or without the West's connivance (and I'm sure it's "with") it skims off most of the profits that do come back to the nation. Guess what happens to that bit of wealth? Frequently it buys dollars which are deposited in Swiss Bank accounts in the name of the rulers. Often it finances illegal activities such as arms smuggling or drugs. what it doesn;'t do is feed the masses.

But USA isn't responsible for that corruption, I hear you say. I think it is - along with Britain and the rest. It is responsible because it allows it to happen, and gains a little bit more wealth into the bargain. It watches genocide taking place in places like Darfur. It allows women and children to be raped mutilated and massacred in DR Congo ... DR, what a laugh! ... It stands by as impotent as a eunuch while that madman Mugabe allows those Zimbabwean citizens he doesn't beat-up, imprison or murder to die of AIDS and other diseases, or starvation. The Zimbabwean dollar won't buy a thing: his wealth, stolen from his fellow citizens, is in American dollars.

We allow bastards like him to strut around ostentatiously, cocking a snook at us and pissing on his citizens, and letting him blame US for it, because if we interfere, we would be committing an international crime: Zimbabwe is a sovereign nation and he can do what he likes within its borders. That smacks of the same kind of weak-minded indifference that allowed Hitler to take over in Germany. No it's worse, because Germany's inhabitants were visibly prosperous and thriving (the plight of the Jews and other "misfits" was well hidden) so it is more understandable that he was allowed to operate the way he did. In Zimbabwe, it's there for all to see.

No, we shouldn't stand back and withhold aid for years to see how many more people die, we should move right in and take over the responsibility for food distribution and medical aid, using force if necessary. Then we should endeavour to ensure that whoever was responsible for al that greed and corruption is subjected to due legal process.

Might not be a truly socialist answer, but I think it has a lot to commend itself with.

[Thorne]

America is seen by those nations in much the same light as Britain. Not the former colonial power (America has only a few overseas possessions or colonies), but a commercial invader instead. While people hunger in the bush, Gerneral Motors, Bank of America, McDonalds and Coca-Cola make fortunes in the cities, which are then turned into dollars and repatriated to the USA. American companies have extracted at least as much from the third world countries as Britain did and can rightly be considered to have grown even richer as a result.

So, you're saying that the American military is parading around these third world countries forcing their citizens to buy American goods? No? Then how are we "exploiting" them? Simply by offering our goods for sale?

And by the same token, how many dollars are siphoned out of the US by foreign companies selling products here? Face it: it's a global marketplace, and if you have something to sell at a reasonable price, why not sell it?

And as for exploiting these countries, sure, the oil companies, for example, made obscene amounts of money by extracting oil from places around the world. They also spent obscene amounts of money to build the infrastructure to do so, as many industries do. And a significant portion of that money went directly to the country involved. If the government of that country decided to keep it for themselves rather than give it to the people, who's fault is that?

Thus, it does not sound well when you complain that you are not thanked for "all" the aid you give: what thanks did you give (as a nation) for the riches you have approrpiated from those poor countries?

Perhaps respect is the wrong word. And I'm not speaking about foreign aid, which is something completely different. I'm talking about disaster relief. And I'm talking about, primarily, American citizens, not politicians. So instead of respect, which must be earned, I agree, let's just say recognition for all that the American people (NOT government) donates to charities world-wide.

But my comments were not really focused on the duty to repay other obligations, but to respond to real and urgent need. If tiny Luxemburg and Scandinaiva can all give about 1% of their income in the form of international aid, why can the world's richest nations give only a fraction of that amount? Britain and Germany give only 1/3 percent, while Japan and USA can give only 1/6%. OK, USA gives more dollars than anyone else - twice as much as the next country, but it can - and should - give much more if it truly wants to provide real assistance rather than just to salve its conscience. The comments Thorne and other Americans have made here and elsewhere in this connection demonstrate why USA is seen as an extremely mean country.

Am I correct in assuming that these figures are for official, government controlled foreign aid?

At any rate, this kind of attitude is the problem with Socialism as I see it. The poor expect the wealthy to "give back" their wealth, regardless of how they may have earned it. I'm not a rich person, but I don't expect anyone to give me anything I haven't earned.

[MMI]

So, you're saying that the American military is parading around these third world countries forcing their citizens to buy American goods? No?

That's right: No! So why mention it?

Actually, in many places, the only goods worth buying come from the West. Often made from resources coming from the Third World originally, but taken out, repackaged and sold back. No force involved, but the only alternative is to go without.

How did the West (not just America, but certainly including it) exploit the Third World? Where to begin ... ?? Extracting mineral wealth using local labour but paying wages that, at best, were menial. Paying the lowest possible royalties and licence fees for the right to extract those resources - using economic muscle to ensure they had to pay as little as possible. Exporting those resources to the West to be sold and resold at higher and higher cost until they reached the final consumer, but none of those resale profits went back to the Third World countries the resources originally came from.

As for "offering goods for sale," doesn't it strike you as incongruous that, while people in urban Johannesburg eat at MacDonalds, there are thousands of people still living below the poverty line in shanty towns like Soweto. Is it right that while people in Zimbabwe or Congo are forced to drink parasite-invested water, the Coca Cola Company is peddling its wares to the urbanites and taking the proceeds back home?

Nothing wrong with offering goods for sale, I grant you, but not where to do so is an affront to justice and equality. Isn't it wrong that a major retail outlet in UK, Ireland and Spain makes the clothes it sells using sweat-shop labour in India, or illegal imigrant labour in UK, where the workers could never afford to pay for any of the garments they produce?

As far as I am aware, you only come across sweat shops like that under capitalism. And, before you rush off to try to find instances of sweatshop labour in centralised economies, may I qualify what I said by pointing out that, under capitalism, the labourers work to make individual wealth owners wealthier. Not themselves, not the co-operative, not the nation, but fat, golf-playing, self-centred people who think that possession of more money than others is a sign of greatness.

[The oil companies] also spent obscene amounts of money to build the infrastructure to do so, as many industries do. And a significant portion of that money went directly to the country involved. If the government of that country decided to keep it for themselves rather than give it to the people, who's fault is that?

Three points:

1. That's capital investment. It is necessary to invest money to generate profits (c'mon - you know that - I thought you were a capitalist)
   
2. Yes, a lot of money went to the country involved, but much more was taken out. Several countries found it necessary, in the end, to nationalise the foreign companies to stop the haemorrhaging of money and oil
   
3. It's our fault if we knowing dealt with a corrupt regime and were aware that the wealth we did create for those countires was being misappropriated. If the money was being used to build a better infrastructure within the nation, then there's no fault at all.

... let's just say recognition for all that the American people (NOT government) donates to charities world-wide.

Am I correct in assuming that these figures are for official, government controlled foreign aid?

Yes, your assumption is correct. I got it from a website - I don't remember which one, but I'm sure the same figures appear on many others.

If you're confining your comments, as you say, to private donations for simple disaster relief - the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, perhaps you're thinking of as an example - then maybe you do give more generously than others, I don't know.

But the need is far greater than the occasional disaster that kills a quarter of a million people and makes 10 million homeless. there are, I understand 64 million refugees in the world, all needing ongoing help and assistance. That's more than the entire population of the United Kingdom!

Furthermore, there are 34 million displaced persons due to war. They need help too. Who are the bigggest war-mongers? Easy. We are - the West! We have created most of the world's homeless, and we neglect the world's poor. A dollop of conscience money every few years doesn't help a lot, even if it does come straight from your own wallet or purse.

Besides, I didn't hear a lot of thanks coming out of America when the nations of the world rallied round and sent millions of dollars and tons of food and clothing to USA after Hurricane Katrina. Perhaps the New Orleans people were too preoccupied to think of offering us respect for our kindness ... just like the Indians and Indonesians in 2004, perhaps

At any rate, this kind of attitude is the problem with Socialism as I see it. The poor expect the wealthy to "give back" their wealth, regardless of how they may have earned it. I'm not a rich person, but I don't expect anyone to give me anything I haven't earned.

Poppycock! And that's the problem with free-market capitalists!

Socialism is not about taking wealth away from the rich, it is about making sure that everyone is paid what they deserve. This cannot happen if there's a man with money who wants to gorge himself first because is says he's entitled to. Capitalism is about putting up the money and creaming off the financial rewards first, without regard to the true value of the labour involved.

There are plenty of millionaires in socialist regimes. There are even a lot of millionaires who consider themselves to be socialist. They don't intend to give away their fortunes, but they do want to see others paid what they are worth.

In your world, Thorne, you expect to die if you can't sustain yourself because you are incapable of doing so for some reason. How much better if your all your compatriots agreed your life was worthwhile and clubbed together to save it. After all, it wasn't your fault if you were born disavantaged, was it, and it was not your entitlement, but just good fortune, if you happened to be born privileged?

[Matin]

one thought...

should we really be in darfur, and zimbabwe, congo... where does that end? should we really invade iran? they're oppressed.

thailand's sex trade ruins thousands of young children every year. invade?

economic mismanagement in the philipines has led to rampant poverty and terrorism. invade?

we did that in iraq and afghanistan. it's a bad idea.

ok, yes. we have the greatest economy on earth. and no, i'm not opposed to the idea of simply whacking the tyrants and madmen, but american history has been one long case of drastic interference in the affairs of other countries, and it has not often ended well.

when you interfere in the direction a country takes, there's an implied responsibility being assumed for the direction they take.

and you may call me an assh*le but here's my response to all of it;

socio-economic darwinism. we get all pissed when the gov't bails out failing auto companies, but say we should bail out failing NATIONS.

let them fail. let them be eaten by their better-managed neighbors, just as has always happened through human history.

[MMI]

Good reply, Matin. Yes, it is wrong to interfere with sovereign nations' affairs, as a pretty much hard-and-fast rule. But there are times when it must be done. Zimbabwe and darfur and Congo are places where we should be. Civil government has broken down or has abandoned its role to let horrific violence rule instead. If a state has no effective government, it has no claim to sovereignty, and other states can step in. It might be an invading force by a neighbour, which is probably not a desirable occurrence because who knows how one nation will treat its subjugated enemies; or it might be a UN sponsored "peace" force which will let a legitimate government emerge while dealing with immediate problems humanely.

Thailand? An invasion's not justified, but the nation should be boycotted and travel to that country prohibited until its sex trade reaches internationally acceptable standards.

Philipines? Since when has economic mismanagement been a reason for invasion. And many countries suffer from poverty, because they are poor. But if the rulers are deliberately causing death and starvation when they have the means to prevent it, then, yes, invade. The Philipines is one of your ex-colonies, so the primary responsibility would be yours, I guess. Over to you.

Iraq and Afghanistan. Foolish in the extreme to have invaded Afghanistan. I don't think anyone since the Ottomans has had any success in that department. Britain tried three times in the 18th & 19th centuries, and failed dismally, Russia failed in the 20th century (thanks to American sponsored Osama bin Laden) and now the united forces of USA, Britain and a motley crew of other nations are going to have to find a way to deal with the Taliban that doesn't look like defeat.

Incompetent to have invaded Iraq. Having first done so illegally (and other nations should have driven us out) we failed to consolidate our occupation and allowed the country to fall into worse anarchy than before.

Sure it's a good thing Saddam is dead, but his death doesn't justify the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths caused by the US in their misdirected desire for vengeance. And the lawless state of the country now is down to us alone. As there is no-one to force us to recognise our faults, we must recognise them ourselves, and take steps to put things right.

As for socio-economic Darwinism, that's a misnomer for sure, but a pox on it anyway. I don't get pissed off when banks are bailed our or motor companies saved. I give thanks for all the jobs that have been saved, for the families (American families as well) that can carry on into the New Year with hope, or if not that, then relief. I regret the companies that have not been saved and the consequent misery that the unemployed people will go through. Because the fact they lost their jobs wasn't their fault. They were working away industriously and usefully - if not to say profitably - until CAPITALISTS decided not to make any more capital available, and drove them out of work and onto the tender mercies of a government whose electors say, if you can't get a job, you can't have any support.

There but for fortune, go you and I.

[Thorne]

That's right: No! So why mention it?

Actually, in many places, the only goods worth buying come from the West. Often made from resources coming from the Third World originally, but taken out, repackaged and sold back. No force involved, but the only alternative is to go without.

<sigh> I see that you and I are on opposite sides of a large gulf, here. My point was that there was not force involved. And there are other alternatives than going without. If goods from the West are too expensive, then manufacture your own goods, and sell them to your neighbors. Then you can be the capitalist! But what's wrong with going without? Sometimes you're better off.

How did the West (not just America, but certainly including it) exploit the Third World? Where to begin ... ?? Extracting mineral wealth using local labour but paying wages that, at best, were menial.

But in many cases (not all, I'll grant you) those "menial" wages were far better than the workers could do with their own businesses and industries.

Paying the lowest possible royalties and licence fees for the right to extract those resources - using economic muscle to ensure they had to pay as little as possible. Exporting those resources to the West to be sold and resold at higher and higher cost until they reached the final consumer, but none of those resale profits went back to the Third World countries the resources originally came from.

Sorry. This sounds, ultimately, like good business practice to me.

As for "offering goods for sale," doesn't it strike you as incongruous that, while people in urban Johannesburg eat at MacDonalds, there are thousands of people still living below the poverty line in shanty towns like Soweto. Is it right that while people in Zimbabwe or Congo are forced to drink parasite-invested water, the Coca Cola Company is peddling its wares to the urbanites and taking the proceeds back home?

And just what would you have them do? Pull out of South Africa and let the country go to hell on its own? Why should Coca Cola worry about the poor in Soweto when the damned South African government doesn't?

Nothing wrong with offering goods for sale, I grant you, but not where to do so is an affront to justice and equality. Isn't it wrong that a major retail outlet in UK, Ireland and Spain makes the clothes it sells using sweat-shop labour in India, or illegal imigrant labour in UK, where the workers could never afford to pay for any of the garments they produce?

Is it wrong? Certainly. So don't buy any of those goods. If people let the retailer know they won't stand for those practices then the retailer will have to stop. But there's the real problem. The people don't care! They only care about cheap goods, with no about concern where they come from.

As far as I am aware, you only come across sweat shops like that under capitalism. And, before you rush off to try to find instances of sweatshop labour in centralised economies, may I qualify what I said by pointing out that, under capitalism, the labourers work to make individual wealth owners wealthier. Not themselves, not the co-operative, not the nation, but fat, golf-playing, self-centred people who think that possession of more money than others is a sign of greatness.

This is true of any economic system, regardless of how it's supposed to operate. Those who have the money get richer. So what? I'd be more than happy to ride that wagon!

there are, I understand 64 million refugees in the world, all needing ongoing help and assistance. That's more than the entire population of the United Kingdom!
Furthermore, there are 34 million displaced persons due to war. They need help too. Who are the bigggest war-mongers? Easy. We are - the West! We have created most of the world's homeless, and we neglect the world's poor. A dollop of conscience money every few years doesn't help a lot, even if it does come straight from your own wallet or purse.

So? What would you have us do? If we help these people there will be more to take their place. There are always poor, there are always unfortunates, there are always hungry mouths to feed. You obviously feel that it's our duty to feed them. I don't.

And sure, if I were poor and desperately hungry I'd feel that the rich should give me food. And if I were rich and powerful I'd feel that I had the right to stay that way. I'd much rather live with the idea that someday I might be able to get enough money to be really comfortable, rather than the idea that every extra dollar I manage to scrape together must be given to poor people who are too stupid, too lazy or just plain too unlucky.

[Matin]

Good reply, Matin......There but for fortune, go you and I.

lol just making it clear what i'm responding to.

socio-economic darwinism is just a term i use because other people will 'get it'. throw it away i don't care. but i believe in the idea. i believe in cause and effect. i believe in responsibility and consequence.

if i choose to to work for a company that exists on shaky footing, then it goes under, well, time to move on. even if i just happened to get laid off. move on. that's life. it's not fair, it's not nice, and it's not something that we can make user friendly.

there will always be horror and brutality in the world. it will be here till we as a race get sick of it and change. until then there will always be one more thing to fix, one more country to save, one more WAR TO WAGE until we are left wrecked and ruined also.

so we become byzantium. we build the best and brightest civilisation we can and survive the economic craziness and the terror. we try to lead by example. we try to show the world what we all have the capacity to become.

and for a parting shot; how can we ever hope to fix anything when our own houses are in such disarray? hipocrisy much?

(btw guys great thread )

[MMI]

<sigh> I see that you and I are on opposite sides of a large gulf, here.

Not unusual, huh?

My point was that there was not force involved. And there are other alternatives than going without. If goods from the West are too expensive, then manufacture your own goods, and sell them to your neighbors. Then you can be the capitalist! But what's wrong with going without? Sometimes you're better off.

They don't necessarily have the seed capital or the skills. But the West does. The West is entitled to sell those skills, but not to rip off the buyers.


But in many cases (not all, I'll grant you) those "menial" wages were far better than the workers could do with their own businesses and industries.

I'm not sure that replacing one evil with another one is justification, even if the replacement is a lesser evil.

Sorry. This sounds, ultimately, like good business practice to me.


Good business practice, maybe, but thoroughly bad business.

And just what would you have them do? Pull out of South Africa and let the country go to hell on its own? Why should Coca Cola worry about the poor in Soweto when the damned South African government doesn't?

Because, even if the South Africans don't know better, we in the West, including the Coca-cola Company do. So, yes, I would have them pull out - they should never have gone in in the first pplace. Unless, of course, they plan to make significant contributions to the way South Africa is run ao that shanty towns like Soweto will disappear.

Is it wrong? Certainly. So don't buy any of those goods. If people let the retailer know they won't stand for those practices then the retailer will have to stop. But there's the real problem. The people don't care! They only care about cheap goods, with no about concern where they come from.

I suspect people do care but feel impotent. Who can take on vested interests and win?

However, I hope, now that this has become public knowledge, that the store concerned will live up to its promises to put things right.


This is true of any economic system, regardless of how it's supposed to operate. Those who have the money get richer. So what? I'd be more than happy to ride that wagon!


Compassion seems to be a rare commodity over on that side of the gulf. But the difference is, under a centralised economy, all work, even "forced" work increases the wealth of the nation as a whole, but under capitalism, it only increases the wealth of individuals who are just as likely to up sticks and go to another country if the see greener grass in the next field.

So? What would you have us do? If we help these people there will be more to take their place. There are always poor, there are always unfortunates, there are always hungry mouths to feed. You obviously feel that it's our duty to feed them. I don't.

Yes, I do feel that way. I'm sorry you don't, especially when I read your next comment.

And sure, if I were poor and desperately hungry I'd feel that the rich should give me food. And if I were rich and powerful I'd feel that I had the right to stay that way. I'd much rather live with the idea that someday I might be able to get enough money to be really comfortable, rather than the idea that every extra dollar I manage to scrape together must be given to poor people who are too stupid, too lazy or just plain too unlucky.

Easy for one of the "lucky" ones to blame poverty on people's stupidity. I bet they all wish they had been as clever as you, and chosen to be born US citizens!

[MMI]

Matin

Doesn't your "parting shot" put a big hole in your argument that we must show the rest of the world what they can become?

Besides, few nations have the advantages the US has always had since the first colonies were established: wealth and massive natural resources. It is doubtful that they can all aspire to America's greatness.

As for your "Darwinist" approach to the problem, I would point out that natural selection is wasteful and random. It is only after countless evolutionary dead-ends have been encountered that a step forward might occur. "Responsibility" and "consequences" are not linked ideas - in fact "responsibility" does not feature at all.

But I'm prepared to adopt your attitude: let's lead by example. Let's show the world what we have the capacity for. Let's double international aid and think about increasing it more. Let's treat the poor as if they are worthwhile people, not stupid fools who deserve their fate because they were born that way!

[Matin]

[QUOTE=MMI;796856]Matin

Doesn't your "parting shot" put a big hole in your argument that we must show the rest of the world what they can become?

no, i don't think so. i think it demonstrates what happens to a country when it tries to be the global hall monitor. we wage senseless international war, spend billions on useless defense systems, hand money to butchers('strategic allies') and chop education spending while raping social security.

Besides, few nations have the advantages the US has always had since the first colonies were established: wealth and massive natural resources. It is doubtful that they can all aspire to America's greatness.

oh bull. many of the worst hells on this planet are resource-rich. it's the gross profiteering that's keeping them down. but let's not forget that america's great natural endowment was reaped by slave labor. my country and yours were built by those horrible insensitive captains of industry.

As for your "Darwinist" approach to the problem, I would point out that natural selection is wasteful and random. It is only after countless evolutionary dead-ends have been encountered that a step forward might occur. "Responsibility" and "consequences" are not linked ideas - in fact "responsibility" does not feature at all.

but they are linked. it is through conflict that our greatest leaders find us. eventually in those countries and war zones we are referring to one of their own will lead them to a better place. or they will be conquered. that is the pattern of our (human) history. they have the government they have because it is what they have provided for themselves.

But I'm prepared to adopt your attitude: let's lead by example. Let's show the world what we have the capacity for. Let's double international aid and think about increasing it more. Let's treat the poor as if they are worthwhile people, not stupid fools who deserve their fate because they were born that way!

nobody born poor 'deserves' it. but c'mon, man, our hand outs are bandaids on arterial wounds! what happened to teaching men to fish? and where exactly does the increased foreign aid come from? america is bankrupting itself now, do we just keep the cash flowing? look, you must at least agree that we have to get back on some stable financial ground before we can throw more money into black holes.[/QUOTE]

[MMI]

Doesn't your "parting shot" put a big hole in your argument that we must show the rest of the world what they can become?

no, i don't think so. i think it demonstrates what happens to a country when it tries to be the global hall monitor. we wage senseless international war, spend billions on useless defense systems, hand money to butchers('strategic allies') and chop education spending while raping social security.

Exactly so. What kind of example is that to set?

Besides, few nations have the advantages the US has always had since the first colonies were established: wealth and massive natural resources. It is doubtful that they can all aspire to America's greatness.

oh bull. many of the worst hells on this planet are resource-rich. it's the gross profiteering that's keeping them down. but let's not forget that america's great natural endowment was reaped by slave labor. my country and yours were built by those horrible insensitive captains of industry.

True about the slavery. Except we did even worse to the natives of some of the countries we ruled (that reads as if I say it with pride: I do not). The difference is, America kept its resources for itself, whereas the colonial powers, and the later economic invaders stripped those resources out of the poor countries for their own benefit, and continue to do so in many places.

As for your "Darwinist" approach to the problem, I would point out that natural selection is wasteful and random. It is only after countless evolutionary dead-ends have been encountered that a step forward might occur. "Responsibility" and "consequences" are not linked ideas - in fact "responsibility" does not feature at all.

but they are linked. it is through conflict that our greatest leaders find us. eventually in those countries and war zones we are referring to one of their own will lead them to a better place. or they will be conquered. that is the pattern of our (human) history. they have the government they have because it is what they have provided for themselves.

I can see the consequnces of random events in what you describe, but I cannot see responsibility being involved in any of them. All I am saying is, I don't think it's a "Darwinian" description. I have no problem with what you say, I was just being a bit picky about a phrase you used. Apologies.

But I'm prepared to adopt your attitude: let's lead by example. Let's show the world what we have the capacity for. Let's double international aid and think about increasing it more. Let's treat the poor as if they are worthwhile people, not stupid fools who deserve their fate because they were born that way!

nobody born poor 'deserves' it. but c'mon, man, our hand outs are bandaids on arterial wounds! what happened to teaching men to fish? and where exactly does the increased foreign aid come from? america is bankrupting itself now, do we just keep the cash flowing? look, you must at least agree that we have to get back on some stable financial ground before we can throw more money into black holes.

Yes, let's go back to teaching men to fish. And buy them a boat to fish from. Then we can buy their catch and eat, while they buy goods that we make and they don't.

America is NOT going bankrupt. Nowhere near it. Anyone who tells you different is lying, or ignorant. America is going through an economic decline because its economy could not keep up with its consumerism, triggered by avaricious bankers willing to lend to anyone who could sign their name, and fuelled by producers whose affluent consumers have no more easy credit. It will be painful. Those who suffer the most pain will be the poorest. But eventually America will emerge again, rich, plump and greedy, just as before. (I recall my economics lessons where I learnt about Thomas Malthus, who said: The rich, by unfair combinations, contribute frequently to prolong a season of distress among the poor. )

[Matin]

i'll do this by paragraphs lol

P1; we agree to a point. this is a horrible example to set. and still there are those who would have us continue to interfere with the development of other nations. to set more bad examples. so let them be. let them succeed or fail on their own merit. if, as america did during our revolution, they should APPEAL to us for aid in freeing them, then good! by all means! but to jump in without invitation just breeds resentment.

P2; this is hard to argue for me. their wealth goes into the pockets of their elite, who use it to buy western guns to get and keep more of that wealth. and then kill their own people. for which they need more western guns.

it's crap. but it's also a story as old as human history. we know the last part; eventually the people get fed up and there comes from the blood and pain a nation that lasts, and has stability.

so do we interfere?

P3; eh. don't apologise it's not the best word to use. i just don't know a better one for that idea.

P4; how many boats can we buy for how many fishermen? seriously? and again my choice of the word bakruptcy was bad. valid, but i should have elaborated more. when any instituution, person, corporation, or whatever carries more debt than they can hope to pay, aren't they considered financially insolvent? it's this threatening instability that worries me so much. these foreign adventures are so often a distraction from mismanagement at home. i want to know that my own country has it's economic problems in line before i support trying to do anything else for anyone. perhaps i'm just a selfish person, but if i'm in debt up to my eyeballs the local soup kitchen is S.O.L.

took awhile but i made it back here

[MMI]

P1. As you say, we agree to a point. And then we diverge. I advocate jumping in without an invitation where the situation is sufficiently dire. I allow a lot of leeway because a nation is sovereign, and its citizens have a right to solve their own problems in their own way. But after that, where poverty and/or disease has overrun the whole country, intervention is a compelling obligation.

I think the American analogy is a bad one, all the 13 colonies wanted was "freedom". The people were not starving and their lives was not at risk under the Crown. Nor were their assets (apart from the fact Britain wanted the colonies to contibute towards their own defence ... After all, it was they who provoked the French in the first place - an incompetent officer in the Virginia Militia participating in the ambush and murder of French Canadians in Jumonville Glen, for example - so they should have paid something: instead they virtually bankrupted Great Britain and said the British were cheating them! But that's another argument.) Remember, the American colonials enjoyed some of the highest standards of living in the world, even back then, so there was no need for France and Spain (or Holland, Sweden or Russia for that matter) to intervene on humanitarian grounds. They intervened for political reasons only.

P2. Their wealth goes into the pockets of their elite ... OK - no argument there, except to say that not all of their wealth goes into the pockets of their elite: much of it goes into the pockets of the West which exploits them so efficiently (I wanted to say ruthlessly).

As we have helped ourselves to so much of their wealth, it behoves us to assist them in their development now.

P3 ...

P4 We buy as many boats as they need. We can afford it. Our debt is simply an overdrawn current account due to a sudden contraction of the market. If the "crunch" had not taken place, we would happily be spending the money our governments are being forced to lend, that and more, no doubt. We have oodles of wealth stashed away in the form of land, labour, industry, property, minerals, natural resources, bank deposits and investments - including investments in poor nations, to name just a few. Don't believe the West can't pay its way and is overburdened with debt. It can and it isn't.

[steelish]

I thought socialism was supposed to be about freedom to jump in bed with whoever you wanted for the moment... *rolls eyes*

No! That's socialIZING

[IAN 2411]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gagged_Louise View Post
I thought socialism was supposed to be about freedom to jump in bed with whoever you wanted for the moment... *rolls eyes*
No

No! That's socialIZING

In this swirl of political arguement it was very clever of you to spot the mistake, sleel1sh.
Well there you have it, all those young girls that were taught about Socialism at school, were deprived of the facts. They were under the impression that Sex, socialism and socializing were the same thing. Lighten up, it was an easy mistake to make when you are suposedly 13.

PS

The Falklands have only British people there, and next time Argentina come calling, we will kick ass once more. The Belgrano was sold to them by Britain, we had the right to destroy it, the mesage was; if we give you a gun then point it the other way, or like the Belgrano, we will shuv it up your ass.

Regards ian a true Brit, LoL

[SadisticNature]

I sometimes wonder if any of you were ever thirteen.

Suggesting that the majority of teenage pregnancies are planned actions designed to milk the government for subsidies that actually only pay a fraction of the costs of raising a baby and aren't profitable to the teenager is rather laughable.

The fact is the vast majority of teenage pregnancies are unplanned. Blaming socialism for teenage pregnancy due to subsidies is pretty laughable.

The science in this area is actually pretty woeful because game theory assumes all actions are planned and all agents act in their own best interests which is a terrible model of reality, people do stupid and -EV things all the time. After all insurance is inherently minus EV and hence not in ones own best interests in a game theoretic sense, yet people buy it en mass.

In fact, I think we should consider the fact that Keynesian Economics suggests the problem with the environment is that no one actually owns the air. After all why shouldn't someone own the air, and charge me for converting oxygen to carbon dioxide by breathing. Maybe we all shouldn't have the right to breathe unless we can pay for it. Killing off those who can't afford it to avoid increasing C02 seems reasonable after all :P