What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say - Page 13

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 12:52

HO: I certainly agree with what you're saying, but I contend that you are looking at it from a too-nationalistic point of view.

If the necessary structures to spread Democracy are not yet in place (as they are not in many corners of the world), then we work to build them. The UN could become the most powerful tool we have in keeping the peace while those structures are put in place. Give them time to take root and grow, and then introduce those people to a whole new idea.

Not for the sake of the interests of any one nation, but for the sake of humanity.

Our futures depend on each other.

With the cold war looming, it was impossible to think like that, but no longer.

No longer.

-=Vel=-

DinoDoc · February 7, 2003, 12:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Fukuyama anyone?

I don't think I could take any more "End of History" drivel.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"but it was the French Revolution that provided a model for the American version"

By timewarp?

OK I'm a little off base there, but the concept's the same.

A lot of the ideas for the early American government came from the French. Benjamin Franklin in particular was very fond of the concepts proposed by the French intellectuals of the time, with Paris being the European hotbed for democratic ideals. In many ways, it was the birthplace of democracy.

And it was the French that gave the US the Statue of Liberty.

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 13:14

It would be impossible for capitalism to function in a cooperating manner. Competition and nationalism are a fundamental part of it.

Kropotkin · February 7, 2003, 13:14

How is nationalism a fundamental part of capitalism?!

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 13:19

The capitalist need nationalism to make the people support capitalism. The people see other people as their enemies instead of their own rullers.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 13:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
The capitalist need nationalism to make the people support capitalism. The people see other people as their enemies instead of their own rullers.

I don't see that at all. Capitalism has more to do with consumerism, and it doesn't matter whether a product comes from another nation or from around the block. The only thing that counts is whether the public wants it or not.

Kropotkin · February 7, 2003, 13:27

How very Lenin of you. However I have to disagree. Nationalism is not a necessity for capitalism. It's a necessity for political leaders in a capitalist society, but that's not the same thing.

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 13:27

I agree. 'bout the only thing that capitalism needs in order to take root is private ownership. The competition part tends to take care of itself.

Perhaps you were thinking of protectionistic capitalism?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 13:28

It's doesn't have so much to do with where the products come from. It's just a basic neccessity for nations who have leaders who oppress their subjects to have percieved enemies other than the leaders themselves. Otherwise the people begin to focus on their domestic enemies.

Kropotkin · February 7, 2003, 13:30

Ahh you mean the police?

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 13:33

The police do the hands on work when it is neccessary.

Kropotkin · February 7, 2003, 13:37

Capitalists are not the enemy of the people, the capitalists that tries to use the political process and the mass media to make their needs and interests paramount over the needs and interests of the people however, are.

And the police is always the enemy, always.

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 13:50

Kropptkin,

Appearently you don't assume that people act in their own self-interest. There aren't many capitalists who care much about the interests of their employees, especially when their interests are at odds (and they usually are).

If you don't think that the police don't consider the welfare of rich people more than poor people you haven't been paying attention. The police are the enemies because of who they work for.

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 13:50

Kropotkin, yes, but you could take out the second "capitalist" in your sentence and sub in ANY other word, and it'd still be true.

Even "the milkman that tries to use the political process and the mass media to make their needs and interests paramount over the needs and interests of the people however, are"

-=Vel=-

Kropotkin · February 7, 2003, 13:52

Hey, it's a universal theory

Willem · February 7, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
It's just a basic neccessity for nations who have leaders who oppress their subjects to have percieved enemies other than the leaders themselves. Otherwise the people begin to focus on their domestic enemies.

But what does that have to do with capitalism? What you're describing can apply to any form of government, all that's required is a will to oppress. It has nothing to do with an economic model, or a transfer of goods and capital. I admit I'm rather dense when it comes to economics (and history apparently

) but I don't follow your argument.

And I'm a socialist at heart!

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 13:54

Like it or not, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Special interest use the political process to get their personal needs met. It is the way it works. The more money you have the more power you have. It's that simple.

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 14:00

Willem,

You're not so dense (even if you believe we're all brainwashed

). True, capitalist, republican governments are not the only governments who need enemies. All nations who oppress their people need enemies.

Kropotkin · February 7, 2003, 14:01

The US? I wasn't talking about the US.

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 14:04

And you live in a Democratic country. Are you sure? Where is this?

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 14:07

I have to agree with the others, Duncan. You as much as said, in your last post, that you're talking about governmental oppresion, not the flow of goods and capital.

I *sorta* see where you're going tho (erm...at least I think I do)....something like this:

For capitalism to exist, there must be private ownership.

Private ownership, by its definition, creates "haves" and "have nots"

The nation in question needs to be stable enough so that the "haves" feel safe in their investments, which means the rule of law, backed up by men with guns.

Close?

-=Vel=-

MOBIUS · February 7, 2003, 14:08

What I don't get is why the Europeans get attacked for thinking that Bush is an ignoramus?

At least half of US citizens think the same thing - are they Eurotwits as well...

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 14:12

Hi MOBIUS...was wondering when you'd wander this way!

I think it's safe to say that the America bashing started way before the shrub came to power.

But for the record, I agree with you, being one of that majority you spoke of....

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 14:13

Vel,

Yes, but you might still be missing part of my point.

The "have nots" wish to be the "haves." They get angry if they focus on the reasons why they are the "have nots." So it is neccessary for the "haves" to create foreign enimies of the state. In that way, the "have nots" do not focus on the "haves." They focus on the percieved common enemy of both the "haves" and the "have nots."

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 14:18

No no...I get you....I agree, sorta. Specifically, I agree that the "have-nots" generally wish to become "haves."

IF there is no mechanism in place to support social mobility, or if there are arbitrary, artificial blockages to this (say...the caste system, of India), then you are right...the system teeters on the brink of disaster, and requires some external point of focus.

However, if there are structures in place which foster social mobility, then this risk decreases (with the same proportion as the strength of those mechanisms that foster social mobility).

-=Vel=-

MOBIUS · February 7, 2003, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hi MOBIUS...was wondering when you'd wander this way!

I think it's safe to say that the America bashing started way before the shrub came to power.

But for the record, I agree with you, being one of that majority you spoke of....

-=Vel=-

But there has to be a reason on the lines of 'no smoke without fire'. There are unfortunately many reasons why people in the world would like to criticise Americans/America - just as I'm sure there are vice versa too I'm sure...

Watch this, I will post a thread about something that has niggled me about american people in general since my recent travels overseas. It will be a question on my observations and I will then attempt to offer some constructive advice...

Let's see where it gets me...

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 14:23

While most people who believe that social mobility is significant tend to be the "haves" not the "have nots," there are exceptions. A more equal distribution of resources, and a more equal access to resources will help keep the people content, and enemies is such a case are not so needed. That is, as long as the economy is doing well.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Vel,

Yes, but you might still be missing part of my point.

The "have nots" wish to be the "haves." They get angry if they focus on the reasons why they are the "have nots." So it is neccessary for the "haves" to create foreign enimies of the state. In that way, the "have nots" do not focus on the "haves." They focus on the percieved common enemy of both the "haves" and the "have nots."

Your presuming that everyone wants to be a "have". It's my experience that most people just want to be comfortable and secure, and have a few toys to play with. Once they reach that point, rather than be angry they become apathetic. That's why many democratic nations are showing such poor turnout at the polls, many people just don't care.

Good lord, I just realized that I'm no longer a socialist!

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 14:29

I'm considering the people who have some property and are content with that to be the "haves." The "have nots" are the people who are living pay check to pay check, have to work two or three jobs, and depend on "payday loans" to survive. There are actually alot in my country.