# What do Americans have against Socialism?



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

I was watching the Daily Show last night (awesome show) and during the segment "Great Moments in Pudentry" (i think thats the name) and it had Bill O'Reilly calling somone else a socialist, as an insult. Up here in Canada, no matter which party you vote for (lib, cpc, ndp, bloc) - you're a socialist. I'm proud of Canada's social roots and I can't for the life of me figure out why, and how, Americans can see socialism as such a bad thing...care to explain?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Good question....*

I've noticed this too, and I'm not sure what the answer is. It's getting worse...now being a 'liberal' is bad too.

I think it's because they've been indoctrinated for decades to fear 'the Communist Threat' and they don't know the difference between Communism and Socialism.

They've also been raised on the notion that Socialism/Comunism are the opposites of 'Democracy.' I wonder what they make of parties like the Social Democrats that are so powerful in many European countries. Maybe that's why they fear the French and have misgivings about Europe in general.

Cheers


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

Because it equates to more government - and less freedom.

Strangely enough, some people trust more government to protect their freedom.
But you could push this further. I believe freedom is over-emphasized as a priority and that economic stability is actually more important to people than they realize.


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

i have noticed almost all the americans that I know that have moved up hear complain about our high tax rate. I beleive it is aroun 37%. the american rate is MUCH lower, and they seem to think its better. But they don't see how much stuff we get for our high taxes. The best is of coarse, free health care(or nearly free). If you have a baby here, it just has to pop out and you go home a happy family. Down there you gotta pay the hospital bill.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Openly liberal*

Not only is being called a socialist in the US a grave insult, I remember hearing some neocon TV pundit, in all seriousness, calling someone "openly liberal", in an attempt to denigrate the other person's argument. All I could do was laugh.

Not only do many folks down there think that socialism and communism are the same thing and that socialism and liberalism are the opposite of democracy, they seem to think democracy and capitalism are also one and the same thing. 

Capitalism thrives quite well under fascism, usually better, in fact.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> [Capitalism thrives quite well under fascism, usually better, in fact.


Blasphemer!

(;->))


----------



## Mike Y (Nov 9, 2003)

It is quite amazing to see how far right the Americans have gotten. I feel like they have let religion get in the way of government there. It is a very good thing to mention your religion in American politics... as long as you are a Christian. Maybe they fear socialism because they view it as being 'godless'.


----------



## John Calhoun (Oct 5, 2003)

As with most things on this planet there is no ONE answer to your query. 

I tried to draft a response to your statement about Americans seeing Socialism as a bad thing but after thirty minutes and about 600 words I trashed the whole thing. 

My shortest answer is that you won't see or hear the opinion of the vast majority of Americans who live in the "flyover" - everything between New York and L.A. - on TV. Any TV. Not US. Not Canadian.

If you ass-u-me that there's a good cross section of American public opinion based on what you see re-broadcast on Canadian TV you will be just as wrong as the guy in Tahlequah, Oklahoma who thinks that all Canadians live in Igloos or that they all say EH!. 

Ok forget that last thing. 

In the US the word SOCIALISM will always be associated with COMMUNISM, Viet Nam and the Soviet Union. It will most likely always be a dirty word. 

What I have noticed is the acceptance of the phrase Social or Socialized Medicine separated from the idea of Socialism. It's a start.

Look. Getting wordy again. 

Please don't judge us all by what you see on TV. I, for one, don't watch it at all and I'm quite quick to tell my friends south that I pay about US$70/mo for health care for my family. Before we left to move back to Calgary we paid US$600/ month. Go figure. 

jc


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Anyone notice the border pattern of the Blue states.  
Think things are "rubbing" off on our southern neighbors. :lmao: 

Seriously tho we are into Cold WWII pitting mixed economies against US market driven.

Guess which MY bet will be on this round.
The US is on the ropes already against China and Europe and wait til India fires up.
I like and am proud of Canada's approach to social values and a mix of government and private enterprise. I think WE'VE got a good model for emerging democracies like Russia, China and the Ukraine.
Europe has much to offer as well.

Imperial America has spent itself......there IS a better way. 
WE are getting there, THEY are in a tailspin.


----------



## KardnalForgotHisPassword (Oct 14, 2004)

Why do they have a problem with socialism?

Duh, it's un-American


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Seems to me that, broadly speaking, the US has always been driven by "get what you can and the devil take the hindmost". The well-off clap each other on the back and applaud the system that they were able to ride, to get to where they are.

A by-product of that, then, is a terror of slipping off the gravy train, and ending up dirt-poor, there being no real safety-nets. Anyone not as well-off is seen as not having the right stuff. They're not good Americans. They are worthy only of contempt. They are undeserving of welfare. No one wants to pay for anyone else - that's not the way to get rich.

I think it's a harsh and dangerous society. Not the fault of the majority, who just get swept along, desperately, and unknowing. Some get lucky, some don't.

I'm reminded of a cynical old teacher (whom we all actually liked) who said, mischievously, and deliberately provocatively, on one occasion, "Half of you will pass, and half of you will fail. Just make sure you're in the right half."


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

What do the have against socialism?

Everything. They hate it on principle, they hate it even more if, perchance, it works, and they hate it when it doesn't work.

I do not like them here or there
I do not like them anywhere
I do not like them in a boat
I would not, could not, with a goat

I will not eat them in the rain
I do not like them on a train
I do not like them in a box
I will not eat them with a fox

I do not like them in a house
I would not, could not, with a mouse
I do not like Green Eggs and Ham

© Dr Suess


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Only a commie socialist anti-American capitalist-hating person would ask such a question. The answer is obvious...   

A major problem is that Americans are bombarded with polarized government and media propaganda on a daily basis. As John Stewart said on Cross Fire, "You're hurting America."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just a thought here...

The title of this thread is "What do Americans have against socialism?"

Instead...you might want to step back and ask yourselves, collectively, "What does the WORLD have against socialism?"

Considering the fact that , twenty or thirty years ago, almost two thirds of the world's population USED to wholeheartedly embrace socialist thinking in some form or other...and that, nowadays, almost two thirds of the world's population is advancing away from socialist thinking, and is moving toward some form of capitalist market driven politics (the remaining third never bought into the myth in the first place). Given all of this...one simply MUST ask the question:

"Why didn't socialism work? Especially when it seemed to have such promise?" and "Why is it being so soundly rejected, on so many fronts, right now?"

It's happening here in Canada, it's happening to our neighbor to the south (where the slightly left of center democrats USED to have some real traction a few years back) and...most noteably...it's happening in western Europe, where there is a very noticeable trend toward capitalist market driven economic thinking and away from the old centrally planned socialist model. Lower taxes, less government interference, more prosperity, less reliance on "Big Daddy" is what we are seeing these days. Pretty much everywhere we care to look.

This is NOT what socialism was supposed to be all about. Not at all. Not even close.

Britain, for example, is soooo far to the right of where it used to be in the late seventies that their own home-grown Socialist Party now closely resembles the British Conservative Party of a few decades back. The Netherlands is another glaring example of a society that is rapidly advancing away from their previous adherence to socialist thinking. Germany is currently abandoning much of their leftist policies. France is already showing signs of doing the same. Pretty much ALL of eastern Europe is far more right wing than they were a few short decades back.

Even that socialist poster child, Sweden, is moving away from some of it's most strongly held socialist principles these days. And there are hints that there is far more to come, as well. Pretty much everywhere.

China and India are prime examples of major players who have largely abandoned their socialist ways in the past decade or two.... and are now progressing rapidly toward world prominence as a result of this big change in political direction. Between them, these two countries account for almost HALF the human beings on this planet right now. 

The list is long. And grows by the day.

So...knowing all of this, any reasonably intelligent individual just has to ask...

Rather than discuss "what the Americans have against socialism?"...the REAL question should be "Why are we Canadians...or at least a controlling minority of us...still flogging this long dead horse? Especially when most of the world has already tried it, abandoned it, and moved on?"

Will Canada be the very last nation on earth to dump this socio/political dead end and move into the future? Especially considering the fact that many of our own Canadian Provinces have openly embraced socialism in the past...and wholeheartedly abandoned it after a few years?

Interesting questions. I await your carefully considered replies.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

trump said:


> Up here in Canada, no matter which party you vote for (lib, cpc, ndp, bloc) - you're a socialist. I'm proud of Canada's social roots...


I think it's important to mention that Canada's social roots are also bundled in with our colonial, conservative, oppressive, and *liberal* roots. If you doubt any one of these, talk to a native, a liberal, more natives, and a socialist (or anything more left for that matter); respectively. According to a fundamental principle of progressive democracy: you are what you vote; if you are voting Liberal or Conservative YOU AREN'T SOCIALIST! Furthermore, the definition of American liberalism and Canadian liberalism is so fundamentally different. The US uses the term to describe the left wing... possibly as far as socialist. Whereas Canadian liberalism seeks to uphold the status quo, which often involves creating the illusion of the A-OK, and otherwise instability and denying critical issues.

I'm indeed proud of our socialist roots (PUBLIC healthcare, welfare, hefty taxes, etc.) but they aren't alone, and certainly not baggage-free. I would more easily state that I'm excited of our Socialist FUTURE. Canada, or indeed any great nation, is only worth it's ability to recognize it's failings and seek to vigourously change to reconcile and mend those wounds. Things aren't OK, until they are REALLY OK.

As for the US and socialism. One of the major things in the US is that their identity is so incredibly important, which I think is related to their history as a republic created from rebellion. Like the early 20th century chancellors of Germany feared socialism, so did the conservative/republican elite of the united states, and similar to the tactics of the later 20th European Fascists, fought it through the relentless expulsion of socialists/communists/anarchists. We are living geographically on top of a country which continues that post-McCarthyism which hunt of these values.

</rant>


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The fact is...socialism just "aint what it used to be".

The current version is beginning to look more and more like a slightly less radical form of rightwing conservatism. The unions are dying and the old socialist ideals...as good as they may have been....have begun to crumble under the weight of the insurmountable debt that they seem to generate. High taxation is the only way to pay for socialist ideals, and money is very mobile...so it usually flees to some place that doesn't have such a high cost of doing business. Which leaves the high-minded socialist ideals without sufficient cash flow to continue to provide the promised services. A downward spiral of ever increasing debt and interest payments or even higher taxation is the unfortunate result. And that makes even more money flee. Or go underground, to avoid these penalties.

All of the old socialist "utopias" had a massive thriving black market to supply goods and services. None of it was taxed. Or ever could be. Corruption was everywhere.

No wonder they all collapsed.

The Canadian socialists (the NDP) are a dead party. No way will they ever attain any sort of power. The Federal Liberals still embrace some core socialist values...but they HAVE to. It's practicaly the only policy that they can still call their own. Pretty much everything else they are working with these days was adopted from the Conservative parties. After they'd spent a suitable period of time loudly deriding and publicly ridiculing these conservative policies in the House of Commons, of course.

So, don't expect what's left of the formerly powerful Federal Liberals to abandon the basics of socialism in public policy just yet. They may do it, just in time for the next election. After all, they know what direction the winds of change are blowing in. But they certainly won't admit it until their backs are totally against the wall and it looks like a sure defeat.

That moment will mark the end of socialist policy here in Canada. No matter who wins the election. It will be a sea change for this country that will be studied by scholars for decades to come.

Shouldn't be long now.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The Canadian socialists (the NDP) are a dead party. No way will they ever attain any sort of power. The Federal Liberals still embrace some core socialist values... but they HAVE to. It's practicaly the only policy that they can still call their own. Pretty much everything else they are working with these days was adopted from the Conservative parties....
> 
> ... So, don't expect what's left of the formerly powerful Federal Liberals to abandon the basics of socialism in public policy just yet...


NDP has increased their membership by upwards of at least 30% in the past year, and recently gained seats in spite of a ridiculous (George Bush style) Liberal campaign to block NDP votes... HMM... that's DEAD alright 

Liberals, though they pretty much "apple c"-ed and "apple v"-ed (though they TOTALLY seem like windows users) the NDP agenda for their platform; have not followed trough with the promises, and I frankly don't think they plan to. Tell me, where is our childcare, sovereignty from star wars, proportional representation, environmental protection, and defence against trade violations? Furthermore, their election priority of wait times didn't seem to address the fact that they are allowing the slow privatization of healthcare, to a publicly contracted system rather than a publicly funded system. This is not socialism.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*MacNutt alert - faulty premise zone*

MacNutt wrote:


> So...knowing all of this, any reasonably intelligent individual just has to ask...


So ... knowing all of what, exactly? That’s what this reasonably intelligent person asks.

MacNutt’s contention that the world is inexorably sliding into a capitalist _laissez faire_ snakepit, is not just faulty, but laughable. His “carefully considered” premises are built on nothing but the echoes of the right wing media pundits or Fraser Institute hacks and their fevered fantasies.

There is more than just a right - left axis, there also is the authoritarian - libertarian axis. It’s a four-sided map, not just a two sided one. For example the United States is not necessarily moving to the right, they’re staying about the same, while sliding heavily in the direction of authoritarianism. Old time conservative fiscal Republicans would be appalled at Dubya’s reckless budgetary policies - massive budget deficits are supposed to be hallmarks of the left, are they not? Many of these same conservatives are also very skeptical of his introduction of intrusive big government measures like the Patriot Act and it’s offspring on steriods, Patriot II, that are eviscerating their much praised Constitution and subverting their democracy.










I would say that if anything, most of the world, with the sad exception of Bush’s America, which is busy wedding itself to the American Taliban, is heading more in the direction of libetarianism, while staying more or less the same on the left - right axis.

Democratic socialist leaning people are not communists and reject the failed utopian ideas that led to Stalinism, it’s merely the left side of the authoritarian pole. People today who would be considered on the left don’t usually have a problem with markets and money, they just know that regulation is required to curb their excesses. Doctrinaire neo-cons think that someone with a pile of capital and enough greed can do no wrong and that the world would be perfect if modeled on the law of the jungle. Let the ruthless and the lucky survive and the rest should perish if they can’t cut it. Or as Ebenezer says every Christmas, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”

As usual MacNutt will rail about nobody being able to answer his supposedly “brilliant” questions. But when the questions are bogus, how does he seriously expect an answer? Of course, it’s never his duty to answer any one else’s questions of him, as those on ehMac have witnessed time and time again. But as he has revealed to us on many occasions his raison d’etre for posting his questions is only to provoke a rise out of the mostly left-leaning folks on this board, for his own amusement. This joke is rather old.

An equally ridiculous question just might be: Since the earth is flat, any reasonably intelligent individual just has to ask ... how will you sail across the ocean? What’s the answer to that one? 

Just quietly leave the ranting flat-earthist muttering away to himself.

BTW, Posterboy made a graph of the four-axis political compass, last summer, with ehMac members plotted along it, who had responded to a survey at this ehMac thread. Of the 19 ehMac members who responded to the poll and got plotted on the chart, only one was on the right side of the left-right axis. Can you guess which one?

His chart can be viewed on this page


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Part one:

As is often the case with those on the left, it's much easier to attack the messenger than to try and deal with the message. Especially when the message is such an obvious world-wide phenomenon as the wholesale rejection of leftist values by pretty much every organised societal group on the planet earth.

For...oh, let's see now...about the last two or three decades. At the very least. It probably dates back to an even earlier period...but the glaring evidence only became publicly known a bit later.

The NDP in Canada is a spent force, no matter how many new members it manages to sign up. It is a spent force both Federally and provincially. No way that the NDP will EVER run this country. And not too likely that it will ever take and hold control of any new provinces, either. Such is the sad state of affairs for the only "officially socialist" party in a country whom some claim is still...at least nominally..."socialist" in it's direction.

Same thing is true in so many other political jurisdictions. China may still be officially "Socialist"...but does anyone really think that they are heading to the left? Or even maintaining some sort of leftish stance? Really?

The ready examples go on and on. And are known to all. Socialism as we knew it is dead. The newly-embraced "social democracy" is just a slightly left of center version of traditional conservatism. And this new "lite version" of the old leftist thinking will also find itself dragged, inexorably, towards the right as time goes on...and as reality makes some of it's still-present pipe dreams vanish.

The future will see less and less government planning and control, lower taxes, less bureacracy, vastly diminished union membership, and more privatisation of services that were formerly provided by the government. This is happening all over the planet and has been for several decades now. Nothing will reverse it...because it works, and can be see to be working by the average voter.

Sorry...but those of you who still cling to the old leftist ways will simply have to deal with this. It may be a sobering change in reality for some of you. Prepare yourselves.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Part two:

My repected colleague (and fellow islander) Gratuitous Applesauce has raised the question of a divide in the right wing. He has correctly identified a slight but noticeable split between the libertarian and the authoritarian sides of the traditional right. Both here and in the USA.

Both oppose any sort of leftist thinking...but both see the future in a totally diferent light. One side wants a solid authoritarian government that regulates basic services, but allows private enterprsie to provide them. So long as they follow the rules. The other side wants NO rules at all. Just pure capitalism and total independance, plain and simple...devil take the hindmost.

To be honest, the majority of the right wing...which would certainly seem to be the majority of the voters in most jurisdictions...favor a solid authoritarian regulatory government who would ride herd on private enterprise to keep them in line with our widely accepted ideals. But they also favor a government that would stay out of everyone's private affairs. And who would stay out of business, in general...and leave it to the private sector.

This includes pretty much all of the services that are still being provided by unionised government enterprises. The ones that have not yet been privatised. All will be gone or severely reduced in scope over the next twenty years, if recent history is any teacher. Most government workers and services will dissappear completely. And be replaced by private contractors. And the only services that will be provided are the ones we can actually afford to provide. This will mean thaat most citizens will have more money on thier pockets because of reduced tax rates, and they will be expected to decide for themselves what ssort of services that they spend their hard earned money on. This is just simple reality. It's happening everywhere.

China and India and even Cuba and North Korea will continue to re-invent themselves. They will, like pretty much every other country on earth, continue to move well to the right, politically. None will maintain or increase their leftist stance. All will change. Some radically.

Western Europe is well on the way towards modifying their previous leftist systems. They are moving to the right in a big way these days. Eastern Europe is abandoning their former radical leftist systems at a furious pace. That whole continent is NOTHING like as leftist as it was a few short decades ago. This should not be news to anyone who has not been living in a cave. Or blinded by leftist ideology.

And I don't think that the radical libertarian forces in the worldwide movement to the right will have any more effect than the radical leftist movements have had on the established left.

Most voters everywhere are seen to be in favor of political moderation. The most noteable point is this...that "political moderation" is all towards the right, these days. Never to the left.

Case in point:

BC is well know for it's strong unions and, recently, went through a decade of leftist NDP rule. It is widely seen to be one of the most socialist of the provinces in a nation that still seems to be clinging to socialist values when so many others have moved on.

But..in the most recent province-wide elections, the BC NDP Party was reduced to a mere two seats after a disatrous ten years in power. Ten years that saw a huge reversal in fortunes for this formerly prosperous province. Our BC economy was almost destroyed by the leftist policies of the union-controlled NDP Party, and we British Columbians became a have-not province for the first time in the history of the nation. We experienced a deep economic recession and tallied up a record amount of provincial debt. All of this happened while the rest of the world was going through the longest extended economic boom in history, by the way.

The BC NDP Party were rewarded for all of this mismanagement at election time by a sound rejection from most BC voters. They went from total power for a solid decade to a mere two seats. They are no longer an official BC political party, and their ertswhile leader doesn't even hold a seat in the Provincial legislature. She didn't even choose to run in a recent byelection...for fear of further rejection. She has no official voice in government, less than six months before the next BC Provincial election.

Tonight...there is an NDP convention here in BC to select nominees for key ridings. The battle is reported to be between the "old" socialist types and the "newer" moderate (more right-wing) types. The old guard hard line socialist union types are determined to cling to control (and also cling to the old ways)...while a new batch of more moderate right-leaning types are equally determined to modify the old leftist party to reflect the new realities. And to get elected.

Guess who won the contest? The moderate candidate. Who looks and sounds suspiciously like a conservative candidate, BTW.

Socialism...even here in "socialist" British Columbia...takes yet another big hit. BIG surprise, eh?

And so it goes.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Why is MacNutt so ANTI-Canadian*

Why are you sooooo *Anti-Canadian* MacNutt? Canada if you don't *Love it*, *Then* leave it?

How's that for a reactionary conservative response? :rofl:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Whoa, big DL! Slow down a minute here! :yikes:

I have just noted that practically EVERY province in Canada has tried socialism and soundly rejected it. I also noted that the national socialist party of Canada (the NDP) has absolutely NO chance of ever attaining majority power in this country.

These are facts. Do you dispute them?

I have also noted that almost HALF of the people on earth (India and China) have recently rejected socialist policies and have turned to what can only be termed right wing capitalist ones. With great success, we might add.

Do you dispute these facts? If so...then please explain in detail. I'm listening.

Western Europe is no longer following their previous path of total adherence to socialist principles. They are buysily modifying all of their policies TOWARD what might be called "right wing" ideals.

Eastern Europe is NOWHERE NEAR as far left as they were only a decade or so ago... 

Do you dispute this? If so... please explain. In detail.

Given all of this obvious data...stuff that is public knowledge...I take great offence at your suggestion that I must either toe the old-style "socialist line", or leave this country! The whole world, including Canada, is rapidly moving away from the old style socialist principles. This is simple fact.

And, as a citizen of Canada who was born here...fourth generation, I might add...I feel it is my right to observe and point out these obvious trends to my fellow Canadian citizens without being told to "leave the country".  

Perhaps you might like to take a moment to retract that particular comment, big DL. Especially since I've been a Canadian a LOT longer than you have.

I'll wait here for your upcoming apology.

I'm serious. Dead serious.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Well, MacNutt's taken the bait, and he's running with it.

What I found interesting, however, was not the politics or where he stands. What I found interesting is that he defined Socialism a certain way, and commented as if we all agreed on that definition. It's a big topic; Socialism is many things to many people, and I for one don't define it as he does. However, it should probably be said that Americans define it a certain way, and that is the crux of their opinions should the word be mentioned.

To illustrate, let's paraphrase the question to:
What do Americans have against Democracy?

Now, had it been put that way, I'm sure we would have a lot of posts vehemently arguing that they don't have a thing against Democracy. But what democracy are we talking about?

Is it democratic when only members of a certain religion are allowed to vote (and the members of that religion are the minority) ?

Is it democratic when only people of a certain race can vote?

We have two prominent democracies in the world who have these exact limitations. But I don't think Americans would find that such a situation fits their idea of democracy, yet they would still insist both these nations are Democratic.

Bonus points to people who can name these two countries.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Canada is Socialist and China is Communist.*

Canada is Socialist as demonstrated by the recent vote of Tommy Douglas being voted the "Greatest Canadian." A forgotten? NDP Member of Parliament. Why else would a minor Socialist politician be so honoured?

When did China throw the Communist Party out of power. I recall a Russian change. Did you confuse Russia with China? Or is it MacNutt “selectovision”?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*More ever-so-tired rhetoric from the right*



> As is often the case with those on the left, it's much easier to attack the messenger than to try and deal with the message.


MacNutt, c'mon, did you actually type that with a straight face? You are the king of ad hominem argument. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Unbelievable.

BTW, I wasn't attacking the messenger, I was saying that your burning question, that you just hadda ask, was founded on an incorrect premise. And I pointed out your history of claiming anything you decide to spout about is absolute undisputable fact, even though you rarely seem to be able to back it up with anything more than grandiose rhetoric. Your voluminous documented postings on this board are black and white proof of this. If you are the messenger of an illogical argument, how do you expect your questions to be taken seriously?


> Especially when the message is such an obvious world-wide phenomenon as the wholesale rejection of leftist values by pretty much every organised societal group on the planet earth.


There's your grandiose rhetoric in the very next sentence. Please. You know, there's a reason people have taken to starting MacNutt-free threads. You might want to think about that and dial it down a few notches.

MacNutt seems to think that everyone who doesn't agree with an authoritarian right wing or neo-liberal right wing ideal is somehow a discredited commie. And he describes democratic socialism, which BTW is not exactly a new idea, as he is incorrectly asserting, as some sort of capitulation to the right. I have disagreed with left-wing authoritarianism, as represented by Stalin, all of my life, as much as I have disagreed with right wing authoritarian fascism and right wing neo-liberal free market ideals. I don't feel threatened or disheartened by the fact that the Russians and Eastern Europe have thrown off totalitarianism, in fact I celebrate it. It's just too bad that in many of those countries, the transition sent them into the hands of criminals, who attempted to steal everything that wasn't nailed down for themselves.

MacNutt's characterization of where the right wing is headed in the US is way off base. Government staying out of peoples affairs? Try on the Patriot Act and Patriot II for size. Shredding the democratic freedoms and their own Constitution. Or how about the Republicans getting into bed with whacko Christian fundies to maintain their grip on power. Gee I wonder how Cheney's daughter or the oddball Gay Republicans, feel about that? Or running up the biggest deficit that country has ever seen in its history, putting the current generation's grandchildren in debt. This is *smaller* government?? How about tax cuts, but only for those who are already rich? Any tiny tax cut that the middle class or poor ever receive is eaten up by the ever increasing costs for newly privatized services.

Which is the happy scenario that we've seen here in BC. The neo-liberal Campbell government has been engaged in an orgy of privatisation, to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy that they instituted within days of their election. While my tax cut amounts to about a pizza dinner a year, I am paying more for health care, hydro, transit, ferry travel and any other government service that I might need. Theses free-marketeers have cost the average BC citizen more and given them less. But hey, millionaires and billionaires are happy, and that's who counts, isn't it?

For example, the Campbell government sold off one third of BC Hydro to Accenture, formerly known as Arthur Anderson, Enron's crooked accountants. Now they have their crooked hands on the contract to manage the billing and customer service for the crown corporation. Anywhere that Accenture has been hired by privatizing governments they have cost the taxpayers more money than the previous government administered services and it is now happening here too. I documented the whole sorry mess in this ehMac post

Public institutions are not necessarily corrupt or inefficient, at least no more so than large private institutions. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat, whether he or she works for the government, Telus, Accenture, or my stupid damn bank. Try winning an argument with any of them. It's only ideological devotion that makes somebody assert that one type is the answer for all things. 

And MacNutt is an ideologue.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

My definition of socialism (small s) is a set of principles whereby a society recognizes individuals and fosters their potential but not at the expense of denying basic human rights to others. A society that cares for all of its members and acts to protect them from each other through provision of services that do not discriminate based on income or ability. This is enormously different from communism which, in practice, squashes the individual and does not promote innovation or incentive. It is also different from pure capitalism which places making money above all else. Both of these other systems are rife with corruption.

Socialism (small s) is a happy medium between the extremes and is practiced in many progressive countries including most of the countries of the EEC.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Of the 19 ehMac members who responded to the poll and got plotted on the chart, only one was on the right side of the left-right axis.


Actually, in a later version of the graph I never uploaded (though I have now, <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/mcsimpson/desktops/compass.htm">see here</a>) there were 23 respondents from ehMac. There is still only one on the right side of the graph, though. Of the 70 respondents total, only 11 were on the right, with one right on the line.

In all fairness though, I don't really believe that "Mac Users from Canada" is an accurate sample of Canadians in general, nor are "Mac Users" an accurate sample of the North American continent.



MacNutt said:


> there is an NDP convention here in BC to select nominees for key ridings. The battle is reported to be between the "old" socialist types and the "newer" moderate (more right-wing) types


A moderate socialist is not so much "more right leaning" as he/she is "not so far left leaning." And yes, there is a difference.

Your black and white treatment of left vs. right politics is quite narrow. Whichever area to tend to lean towards, there is no denying that getting too far out at <i>either</i> end of the spectrum is asking for trouble.



used to be jwoodget said:


> My definition of socialism (small s) is a set of principles whereby a society recognizes individuals and fosters their potential but not at the expense of denying basic human rights to others. A society that cares for all of its members and acts to protect them from each other through provision of services that do not discriminate based on income or ability


I, for one, consider myself just left of centre, and this is pretty much how I feel too. Economics + social responsibility = better society. And it is possible.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

*The third way??*

Here's a heart warming tale of the US medical system......

'Frank the Tumor' biopsy will be free
Mother had sought online help to defray medical costs
Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Posted: 1527 GMT (2327 HKT) 

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- A 9-year-old boy whose mother launched an online auction to help pay for a biopsy on her son's tumor will have the procedure done for free, his mother said Monday.

Dr. Hrayr Shahinian of the Skull Base Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center agreed to perform the biopsy free of charge on the tumor young David Dingman-Grover named "Frank," said Frank Groff, spokesman for the Los Angeles institute.

David's parents had been auctioning off a bumper sticker reading "Frank Must Die" on eBay to raise money for the procedure.

"We have been so blessed," said David's mother, Tiffini Dingman-Grover, of Sterling.

David named the tumor at the base of his skull after Frankenstein, who used to scare him until he dressed up as the monster for Halloween.

The little boy was diagnosed in May 2003 with a grapefruit-sized malignant tumor called a rhabdomyosarcoma. The size and location of the tumor -- most are in the limbs -- made it impossible for doctors to take out, Dingman-Grover said.

Chemotherapy shrank it to the size of a peach pit, but David needs a specialized biopsy to determine whether the tumor is still cancerous, his mother and doctor said.

David's biopsy is scheduled for February 2. The family still has to help pay for the anesthesiologist and other hospital fees, but the $40,000 in private donations they've received since the case caught the public's attention earlier this month will be sufficient, Dingman-Grover said.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Pop quiz here (for some of the more fuzzy thinkers):

Q-Is China MORE or LESS socialist in the traditional sense these days, than it was twenty years ago? How about ten years ago? Is it moving TOWARD traditional socialist values...or AWAY from them? No fudging now. Be honest. Especially with yourself.

Q-Is India MORE or LESS socialist in the traditional sense these days, than it was twenty years ago? How about ten years ago? Is it moving TOWARD traditional socialist values...or AWAY from them? Again, be honest.

Q-Is Western Europe the same socialist paragon that it was twenty years ago? Is it even as socialist NOW as it was ten years ago? Or have rather a lot of basic socialist values seemed to change over that period?

Q-Is Eastern Europe..this includes Russia BTW...anywhere NEAR as socialist as it was ten years ago. How about twenty years ago? No? How come then?

That takes care of about two thirds of the planetary population. I could go on, but you get the idea. At least I hope you do.

I know I know...you truly committed oness will simply say something like "socialism is changing with the times. Modifying itself to reflect the current realities"

Fair enough. It IS changing. But in what direction? (A steady observable shift in one particular direction, I might add. And it's NOT to the left.) 

(BTW...Macdoc calls this "centering to the right". I think he actually coined that very appropriate term, right here at ehmac. Good for him! He's actually voiced the reality...even if he doesn't want to quite accept it just yet.) :clap: 

Socialism...as so many have been heard to say of late "just ain't what it used to be".


Oh...and one last word for Gordguide here:

Democracy may be how you precieve it Gord. But...want to guess what single country has been used as the template for a true democracy by more of this planets countries than ANY other?

Hint: it ain't Canada. :heybaby: :scream:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...

I am STILL awaiting an apology from Big DL for being told to "leave the country" if I don't believe in what he believes in.

I most certainly do NOT! And I have no intention of leaving this land because my beliefs differ with his. Especially since the majority of the people on this planet seem to be moving toward my stance on this subject...and away from his. Including right here in Canada.

This country is based upon the rights of diverse people who often have differing opinions on some pretty sensitive subjects. As far as I can tell, we all have a right to openly voice those opinions without being told "to leave the country". Especially here at ehmac.

I am waiting for an apology, Big DL. I am NOT kidding!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

trump said:


> I can't for the life of me figure out why, and how, Americans can see socialism as such a bad thing...care to explain?



The short answer is: in large part, because they have been brainwashed. But it is also because they are afraid to challenge "groupthink". It also helps that socialism requires sharing the wealth, and many of them would rather keep it all to themselves. But the prime reason is that their culture (and particularly the religious tradition from which the country descends) makes it difficult for them to perceive the humanity of human beings other than themselves as individuals and as a society. Or in short, the explanation is to be found in their traditional invidualism and jingoism. The ideal of "full spectrum dominance" is the logical extension of these historical attitudes.

It is only fair to say, of course, that they are hardly the only culture to have been led astray by these attitudes towards fellow humans. Every European culture has taken its turn at doing the same when the opportunity presented itself. But most other nations have gradually learned a little better. The US is simply farther behind the moral evolution of mankind than every other nation. 

And we should remember also that a very large number of Americans are, and have long been, opposed to the predominant "social darwinism". There is some hope that they may challenge their fellow citizens to do some serious thinking about the advantages of domestic and international co-operation, instead of relying upon the use of power.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Good post, William. Agree with all you say.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Outstanding analysis, William. Bravo.

I just want to emphasize your point that many of the best, brightest and most vocal opponents of American Jingoism and other follies are American citizens working within the US to change things (people like Noam Chomskey come to mind).

We have our own hard-working activists and sources of alternative viewpoints in Canada as well.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The "American Dream" is dangled in front of people like a carrot attached to a donkey's head. If they think they can get rich, they will accept their place in society and not question policies that benefit the rich. Yet, the gap between rich and poor in the USA gets worse every year. I mentioned it before but the Democrats were non-plussed by the fact that Americans seemed willing to accept the fact that tax cuts were going to preferentially benefit the top 1% of earners. When they polled people, 15% of people thought they were within that bracket (the poll was not conducted in Beverley Hills).

Quite apart from the social injustices, the acceptance of poverty as a neccesity of capitalism increases crime, contributes to community decay and creates societal castes. Appealing to selfish greed and blaming the poor for their condition seems to be a recurring theme of the Republicans. It's acceptance by the voters is what is more diffcult to understand.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

*Americans and socialism*

Socialism? Hell, Americans think a "liberal" is the next thing to Stalin. 

I remember when I was in graduate school I took a Sociology seminar course that attracted a lot of Business School types. On the first day the prof made an offhand comment about something Karl Marx said. There was an American there (a Business grad student, remember) who practically had a coronary - started sputtering about communism and repression etc. none of which was relevant to the point at hand-something about economic theory. Brainwashed, indeed!


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

Hello.

Canada public debt/capita: approx. C$20,972.50 (note: this amount is decreasing every day)
USA public debt/capita: approx. C$32,097.00 (note: this amount is rapidly increasing every day)

Goodbye.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Speaking of Hello . . .*

TORONTO -(CP)- Canadian households have put themselves seven per cent deeper into debt than a year ago and are acutely vulnerable to any economic turmoil, a CIBC World Markets report warned yesterday. An apocalyptic credit-market collapse is unlikely but "a complacent approach toward the rapid pace at which Canadians borrow is similarly misleading and dangerous," says economist Benjamin Tal's study.

Debt is increasing faster than the economy's fundamentals can support, he wrote in a study titled Are We Sitting on a Debt Time Bomb?

"I'm talking about people who borrow to support a lifestyle they cannot otherwise afford," Tal said.

"The sensitivity of households to higher interest rates and to other economic shocks suggests that the next recession will be more severe because of that."

His report says Canadian households owe 20 per cent more than at the start of the decade while average disposable incomes have risen at an annual rate of less than two per cent after inflation, amid an "almost chronic inability of the Canadian economy to generate high-paying jobs."

He who lives in a glass house . . .


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Canada has roughly the same percentage of citizens without health care as the USA...and almost the same percentage of our population on the streets. We have a higher per capita debt than the USA, once you factor in provincial and municipal indebtedness. And we have a less productive and more unionised workforce...and a far less dynamic economy that the Americans do.

The biggest difference that I can see (besides the above)...and I have lived extensively in BOTH nations...is that the USA is not poised to have it's social safety net completely collapse from the massive demographic time-bomb that will explode once the baby boom generation suddenly retires, en masse.

Canada WILL have to deal with this. Big Time.

The only other major difference that I can see is our massive Canadian Federal taxes compared to the states. Which will only go UP astronomically, once the baby boomers start to retire in droves...and begin to make unprecedented demands upon our much-vaunted social safety net.

We should be dealing with these problems NOW...instead of ignoring them and putting the whole question off "for later". Just as much of Europe has already dealt with it.

Or...we could just keep on electing the vapid Liberals, who refuse to deal with the looming crisis at all, for obvious political reasons. And, just hope for the best.

Good luck with that.
:yikes: :dead:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Canada has roughly the same percentage of citizens without health care as the USA...


What part of 'Universal Health Care' don't you understand?




> and a far less dynamic economy that the Americans do.


Agreed. And this is something we should be working on. Step 1 is to reduce our dependence on natural resources, and diversify our trading partners. NAFTA severely hampers these efforts, as we are, for example, bound by this treaty to provide the US with Oil forever.



> The biggest difference that I can see (besides the above)...and I have lived extensively in BOTH nations...is that the USA is not poised to have it's social safety net completely collapse


Because it doesn't have one.

Cheers


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

bryanc said:


> What part of 'Universal Health Care' don't you understand?


That almost made me laugh out loud.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Socialism is only dead in the same sense that the Suffragette movement is dead... many of the once radical aims of socialism are now broadly accepted by western nations. These would include universal healthcare (US aside), welfare and some government regulation of the economy. (ie. The British Labour party may have moved to the right as Macnutt says but the British Conservatives haven't moved with them... and they know better than to even hint at curtailing the National Health Service.) Anyone who thinks the US is an exception to the trend should take a look at how much money their government takes out of the economy... they may be the bastion of free enterprise but the US government now spends 1/3 of their annual GDP. How shockingly socialist!

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carrie.... Spending And Revenue In Relation To GDP.GIF


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ummm..... according to Dubya, the US social security system is going to collapse - altough this is a fact that is hotly disputed by the people actually running the economy. The US economy is also in an unhealthy state given the balance of trade deficits and the national debt. Of course, if the US economy tanks, so will ours, so we'd better hope they do get their act together......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Alas, I think the last hope for the recovery of the American economy (without first collapsing and reorganizing) was lost with the 2004 election. It appears to me that the US economy is in an unrecoverable tail-spin, and, rather than trying to solve the problems, the Bush administration is saying 'Crisis? What crisis?' (cue Supertramp soundtrack).

As Canadians, there is very little we can do about the imploding economy south of the border, and we will certainly suffer from it's effects. But, like many disasters of this scale, it's happening in slow motion, and if we can wrench our eyes away from the spectacle of it, we can do a lot to insulate ourselves from the worst of its effects.

1) Cultivate trading relations with other countries (EU and Asia being the obvious possibilites...the next century will be the Chinese century in the same way that the last one was the American Century).
2) Distance ourselves from the US politically... stunningly, given the support and sympathy felt for the US after 9/11, the actions of the Bush administration have turned the attitudes of most of the world's citizenry against the US over the past 4 years. As such, being seen as the big bully's sycophantic little side-kick is doing Canada's international reputation no good whatsoever. Step one of this processes would be to state unequivocally that we want no part of Star Wars or whatever it is they're calling their space-based missile offence program.
3) Diversify our economy. This is something we've needed to do for many reasons for a long time, but our current role as 'natural-resource-provider to America' is not viable in the long term, and, as the US dollar continues to plummet, it will become even less profitable in the short term.

Getting out from under the elephant won't be easy, but it's better than the alternative.

Cheers


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Bryanc,

I would agree with you that the US trade and budget deficits are not sustainable and that there will be a painful reckoning... their sinking dollar suggests it may have already begun. However, I'm less pessimistic about their long term prospects than you are. They have a powerful economy with lots of well educated people and successful, world beating companies... and still lots of time to turn things around. During the 1970's there were many who confidently predicted that the UK was headed for second world status... but some abrupt changes in government policy (and admittedly some North Sea oil) reversed the slide. The US probably won't survive as the world's one superpower, but they will continue to matter. That said, I completely agree that Canada should be diversifying and seeking new allies.

Cheers!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I hope you're right Fink-Nottle (love the avatar, BTW, but no, I would not like any toast). But, the beauty of the strategy I recommend, is that it will benefit Canada regardless of what happens to the US. We've depended on the US buying our oil, grain, wood, fish, beef, etc. for our entire history. If we are to develop as a nation (or even survive if the US really implodes as badly as I fear it will), we need to do other things.

Cheers


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Nope! Not this time.*

To all Members of Ehmac land and your honour the Mayor I respectfully ask that you forgive me for taking so much space with the following open letter. I also wish to point out that I tried to reply earlier, however on the night I attempted to reply the server went down. All my work went for not. I finally have the time to respond.

*"WARNING! the following text is a satirical look at recent events. It may offend some viewer(s) who may not share this sense of humour." *(due respect and credit given to the writers of 22 minutes)

Dear MacNutt:

With response to your post thread post # 30
quote:
“I am waiting for an apology, Big DL. I am NOT kidding!”

Please do not stick any of your appendages into any orifice of your body because it will likely graft onto that orifice before you receive any apology from moi.

You will note as a socialist I give you free and individual choice to pick the appendage and the orifice of your choosing. I have not mandated them for you. I give you free and unlimited choice. I have also given you fair warning.

My post asks “Why are you so anti-Canadian?” Your posts leads me to believe that and you have not answered my question.

Canada love it or leave it when followed by “How’s that for a reactionary conservative response” further followed by a “roll on the floor laughing” emoticon shows it was not meant to be taken seriously as a desire for you to immigrate. (Little good would that do as you are only one mouse click away anyway.)

My belief is that any reasonable person would come to this humourous conclusion. *You *will have to trust me on this point.

In its entirety my post was for the sole purpose of finding out why you are sooo anti-Canadian? Your response is to avoid the question by going onto another tangent.

I believe there should be private ownership however the development of our country’s resources must be for the benefit of all Canadians. I also believe that key sectors of our economy should be developed with goals and objectives that benefit our society. 

Not development based on what gets the biggest bang for the buck on a three month term.

I believe if asked many other, Ehmac members, would agree in principle with my beliefs. 

Would the members that agreed with me identify her/himself as Socialists? I don’t believe they would. I believe many members here are thoughtful and reflective and see the benefit to set objectives and outcomes not solely based on what is good for capital. 

Do I believe there is FREE medical care in this country? Absolutely not. I believe there is a prepaid healthcare system in this country that costs a bundle. Do I believe the Multinational corporations operating in this country are getting off without paying their fare share to “medicare”? Absolutely. Remember in the USA it costs Corporations plenty to provide their employees with medical coverage.

You will note I clearly identify my beliefs. I do not project and attribute my beliefs and opinions as “facts”.

I will assure you that I am not a right wingnut in any way shape or form. 

Among other things I am a devout Socialist. Do I believe someone missed my ironic based humour? Yes! Will I apologize for that? No!

This thread MacNutt Posted #22
quote:
“Perhaps you might like to take a moment to retract that particular comment, big DL. Especially since I've been a Canadian a LOT longer than you have.”

I did not know Canada had a system of seniority rights for citizenship! 

MacNutt what make you think that you in particular and your fore bearers in general have been in Canada longer than me and my family anyway? Upon which “agreed on” seniority list is(are) this(these) “fact(s)” based? 

Once again I am hearing some supposed idea held personally projected as a fact. This is not the first time, sadly and *IRONICALLY* nor the last time I fear. 

Even if Canada had seniority rights that did count for something why should I retract any particular comment? Except of course to stifle free speech. 

This thread MacNutt Posted #22
quote:
“Given all of this obvious data...stuff that is public knowledge...I take great offence at your suggestion that I must either toe the old-style "socialist line", or leave this country! The whole world, including Canada, is rapidly moving away from the old style socialist principles. This is simple fact.”

I seem to detect the socialist “liberal” tolerance, for different opinions and beliefs, was missed by someone. 

Different opinions and beliefs are not only tolerated but encouraged by myself and I believe many other socialists and liberal thinkers. I believe the intolerance and stifling of opinions by say a “reactionary conservative response” was projected upon and attributed to all socialist. Oh the *IRONY* of it all.

This thread MacNutt Posted #14
quote:
"...the REAL question should be Why are we Canadians...or at least a controlling minority of us...still flogging this long dead horse?“

Are the minority of socialists to whom you refer the Cooperators, Co-operatives, Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires. Are these the socialist menace that have the Barons of Bay Street quaking in the corner offices? Are these the controlling menace that endanger our democracy and egalitarian treatment of our citizens?

Once in awhile I have to react to outrageous statements. Do I apologize for that? Nope!

When beliefs are simply expressed as beliefs I can respect that. When beliefs are represented as facts I can not abide that and have an innate urge to lampoon those “facts.” 

This thread MacNutt Posted # 40 
“Canada has roughly the same percentage of citizens without health care as the USA”

Trusting the above statements will continue, the question Why is MacNutt so Anti-Canadian? remains, 

Still wondering 

Dana


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Anyone catch the Fifth Estate tonight? Had interviews with Al Franklin and Anne Coulter as well as many others. It was about the disappearance of objectivity in the US media. A lot of focus on Fox News of course, but it was quite amazing to actually hear people say they still believe there are WMDs in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, etc. Reminded me of the tobacco execs standing in line to state that nicotine is not addictive. Instant loss of credibility. Even the Bush administration no longer touts these lies.

I can't tell whether Coulter is mad or a dark humoured comedian.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

*Her message...*

Her message was quite clear, she didn't have all the facts (Canada and Viet Nam). And this is not the first time I've seen her without facts. 

And Karl Marx would find much of this the inevitable outcome of blindly following the capitalist system. The US right wing is doing exactly what they accuse the liberal media of doing, namely pushing an ideology with market tested methods. I guess that makes him an economic prophet. 

And in every respect of the anniversary of Auschwitz, I can't help but think how important it is to be on the lookout, to question a prosperous authority figure, to question how that prosperity was made, to question who was not allowed to share in that prosperity (be it Jew or Gay). 

I also recognize the limitations of this metaphor - but all those dead men, women and children keep asking us not to make the same mistakes twice.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

I don't want to be a party pooper, but I have to say that these large threads become quickly ineffective as it becomes more and more difficult to:

1) read all our replies
2) keep up with all the things that we disagree with

But I must briefly state my disagreements with points that I think are being assumed true, or taken for granted.

Namely that it's indicative of an inherently conservative mindset to marginalize a particular opinion by suggesting their goals can never be attained. That is, at the moment, you can argue that the NDP will not likely form government, but I don't think it's productive to assume that current larger parties are the only contenders.

Secondly, and this point is really critical. Trickle-down economics are flawed and do not work... anyone who isn't in the financial 10% should be able to realize that. Failing that realization, listen to a homeless person, or working class family. I could go into more detail, but it's better to catch me on iChat and discuss it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think that most of us understand that the continuing unpopularity of the NDP...as reflected in their consistently low score in all of the Federal elections (and most of the Provincial ones as well) for the past decade or so...leads most of us to bleieve that they will never manage to form the government of this land.

That is not speculation or marginalisation due to ideological preconceptions. That is simple fact.

What is ALSO fact is that the whole socialist movement is either completely stalled out on a worldwide basis, or in serious retreat. Depending upon whom you talk to or what you chose to observe.

It certainly isn't gaining any ground. Anywhere.

Capitalism and free market principles, on the other hand, have made huge inroads on previously untrodden ground over the past decade or two.

In fact...it's even making serious inroads in pretty much all of the political movements that have been describing themselves as "socialist" since the term was originated. They are all moving toward the right and moving away from their traditional socialist principles these days. And have been doing so for some time now.

America and Americans are not "against socialism" per se. They are simply a large visible part of a worlwide trend away from something that just didn't work out very well. Mostly because it was unsustainable...even by the wealthiest of nations.

Central planning, government owned monopolistic services and industries, massive government labour unions, carefully controlled economies, cradle to grave all encompassing social programs, government financed mega projects, forced equalisation of economic status by heavy taxation...

All of this is either dead or dying in all of the places where it was once the accepted norm. Within the next decade or so, most of it will be gone for good.

The lessons of success, and the many obvious failures, have not been lost on the public at large. The decsion has been made. The worlwide socilaist movement is at a dead end, and everyone knows it.

It looked great on paper...but it just didn't work. Sooner or later, even the most ardent supporters of the old ways will have to admit this to themselves and move on.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macnutt,

I think you are right but you are missing the bigger picture. Socialism as a route to communism or as an ideological goal itself is dead and discredited. However, I would argue that there is a general consensus in the western world that the government and the public sector have a large role to play in the economy and in our lives.

Pure, unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism was effectively discredited by the Great Depression. Toward the end, governments responded with 'make work' projects, wellfare, the 'New Deal' etc. The growth of the public sector accelerated during WWII and continued unabated afterwards as universal healthcare and more extensive welfare programmes were introduced in Europe and Canada. Beginning in the 1980's, we see their growth slowing and governments attempting to apply market principles to these programmes... but they have not been curtailed. In the western world today, government spending accounts for 35-45% of GDP in most counties. It is lowest in the US at about 33%, it is highest in the Scandinavian countries at close to 50%, but most of western Europe (and Canada) is close to 40%. So the difference between the capitalist Yanks and 'Canuckistan' is 7-10% of the economy. Not a small figure, but not an ideological chasm either. In fact, due to US spending on the war, the tax burden (and so the effect of the government on their economy) is certain to rise; they are trying to defer the effects by running deficits but they won't be able to it forever and their sinking dollar suggests time may be running out.

I would argue that Socialism is dead not just because countries like the USSR and East Germany collapsed, but also because the mixed economies of Western Europe, Canada and the USA have done so well. We all want the wealth that a market economy makes possible... but we also want health care and a safety net if that economy fails us. As long as we have those things, we don't need socialism... off to the dustbin of history with you!

I'll leave you with a prediction... the United States will have some form of universal health care within 20 years. Trust me on this...


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

The problem is that the US tries to brain wash everyone in the country into individualisim. They should concentrate instead of on a more collective ideological view of the world. Of course that wont happen cause all the ritch people that control the world would never agree. As for Communisim which has never worked, because of the greed and lust for power. Unfourtunatly all we have seen is a distorted lennin/ Stalinist form of communisim. You disagee you DIE, even if we suspect a thing. Not the Communisim that Karl Marx describes in the communist manifesto. As for Socialisim the same thing. Much of the Socialist ideology has never really been done since Socialisim requires it to be a world wide ideology. As for suposed Socialist countries there is a few Sweden, Denmark. Personaly I think the Americans are too filled with every man women and child for themselves. Get sick in the States and see who cares. Social Darwinisim. As for Socilisim and Communisim they are not the same thing but are often confused  Socilisim and communisim can never work because there will allways be someone who wants more. I would also question Liberalisim, Democracy and politicians. Is our system really working?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> America and Americans are not "against socialism" per se. They are simply a large visible part of a worlwide trend away from something that just didn't work out very well. Mostly because it was unsustainable...even by the wealthiest of nations.


The power elite of the USA (and especially the Shrub) focus their “socialism” on the “Corporate Welfare Bums“ of the Military Industrial Complex. 

The Shrub has begun the fight to end to their Social Security Plan.

The fight for (to need) an outer space based missile defense, a technology, to protect the USA from a non threat? A peace (in Iraq) that is costing a large fortune in military hardware and supplies not to mention the costs to lives and freedoms. Paid for by deficit financing.

Seems to me to be the brand of socialism trotted out by the National Socialist of the 1930’s to mid 1945 in Germany. 

Your right it is not a sustainable form of socialism but it does benefit the top 1% of the USA social group the so called “HAVE MORES” and by some peoples standards those are the folks that count and truly need and deserve the help.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I just spent almost an hour carefully crafting a complex and insightful reply to this thread. Too bad the totally buggy vBulletin software on the new ehmac decided to time out and dump it into the ether instead of allowing me to actually post it after all of that hard work

Who knows? Maybe I'll be inspired to repeat the performance and take another hour of my limited spare time to carefully write out yet ANOTHER similar reply to this thread....and hope like hell that THIS time that the huge fetid band of vBulletin gremlins are out having lunch or something, so I can actually post it this time.

Or...maybe I won't.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Geez... seems to me your posts come through just fine after the fact. Odd... it happens over and over ad nausuem.

Maybe this is the variation of the "link" problem you had posting on the old board...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No such luck, Manny.

Ehmax and I have had many discussions about this over the past few days...and plenty of others have been complaining about the "timeout" bug on this new vBulletin software. My longer posts tend to take a half hour to 45 minutes to compose and correct. This seems to be beyond the attention span of the new forum hosting software...so I am asked to "log in" again when I try to post a biggie. That's when it vanishes forever.

And THAT is when I ask myself "what is the point?"

If the Mayor ever gets this fixed, I'll soon be back to ripping your carefully crafted artificial reality to shreds again, with the sheer force of blinding Scots logic. Using giant overwhelming long-winded posts, no less. 

Till then, I'm outa here.

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I don't necessarily think that the problem is with ehMac itself, considering that I have been logged in continuously since about the second day that ehMac has been up again.

As I said before, though, you can avoid losing any work by composing your posts in Text Edit (or another editor) before hand and then copy/pasting it into the post window. This has the added benefit of just being a better way to write too.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Blinding Scots Logic???*

I think if I was Scottish or a descendant of Scots I would take offence at Mr. MacNutt's attempt to portray his usual dog's breakfast of logically fallacious arguments and endlessly repetitious rhetoric, attempting to support facts that never were, as "blinding Scots logic". Too funny!

Oh yeah, and I'm the King of France. ROTFLMAO!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*vanishing posts*



MacNutt said:


> ...so I am asked to "log in" again when I try to post a biggie. That's when it vanishes forever.


This has happened to me a couple of times - but the solution is ridiculously easy.

When it forces you to the "login" screen, just go BACK. Select your post, copy it, then login, and paste. Easy as pie.

Alternately, if you know you're going to go off for a half-hour response, do it in a word processor and paste it in. Not as elegant as having a fully-functioning BBS, but until the bugs ar worked out....

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Very pleased to meet you GA...or should I say "your majesty".  (I had no idea that I was dealing with royalty. Maybe I should have brushed my teeth or something.)

I'll try your suggestion about hitting the back button, Mark. It sounds insanely simple. Hope it works.

So...back to our discussion about the death of socialism as a political movement on planet earth during the early years of the 21st century. Next caller please....


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Firth Estate*



used to be jwoodget said:


> Anyone catch the Fifth Estate tonight? Had interviews with Al Franklin and Anne Coulter as well as many others. It was about the disappearance of objectivity in the US media. A lot of focus on Fox News of course, but it was quite amazing to actually hear people say they still believe there are WMDs in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, etc. Reminded me of the tobacco execs standing in line to state that nicotine is not addictive. Instant loss of credibility. Even the Bush administration no longer touts these lies.
> 
> I can't tell whether Coulter is mad or a dark humoured comedian.


I caught that jwoodget.. Excellent piece. Guess *who isn't too pleased*  Ann Coulter is one scarry looking chick. She looks like she's about to go pyscho at any moment. (If she hasn't already) And who was the female conservative radio announcer from out west in Canada? She looked like she had a few loose marbles too. She got charged for stalking her ex-boyfriend or something. Crazyness. Hilarious how many times she's been the conservative Canadian voice with interviews on Fox.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sooo...the left/lib types are now reduced to making fun of how their opponents look in lieu of mounting any real defence against a swelling tide of common sense conservatism that threatens to sweep them away. Sounds like desperation to me. 

The left ran out of ideas a very long time ago. Now they are running out of popular support. So they point and laugh and call people names and make fun of the way they look. Next thing you know, they'll be hucking rotten tomatoes and running away to hide, in order to avoid dealing with the issues.

Somehow, it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Errr.... watch the show Macnutt. The nastiness was spewing from the mouths of Anne Coulter and O'Reilly (along with remarkable ignorance of the facts - Coulter was convinced Canada had taken part in the Vietnam war). It was pure vitriol and personal attacks. The issue is if these are the mouthpieces of the American Right, then has the Right resported to ideological thuggery as its face.

It's also interesting that you seem to define anyone who does not subscribe to the neo-Con manifesto as a Leftie. The vast majority of this country lies to the left of your political position. I humbly suggest you learn to deal with it.....


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> It's also interesting that you seem to define anyone who does not subscribe to the neo-Con manifesto as a Leftie. The vast majority of this country lies to the left of your political position. I humbly suggest you learn to deal with it.....


The vast majority of the world!  

Macnutt, do us a favour and define "socialism" Try to use words other that "Leftie" and "Lib/Left" Once your definition is truly known, I'm sure the Bright, Intelligent "Lefties" in this community will tear you to shreads.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't give much credence to any of the extremists on either side, Jim. I only watch Michael Moore to get a good belly laugh and marvel at his twisted data. I have never watched Bill O'Reilly. Not Ever. Sometimes, I do watch Dennis Miller...and usually enjoy the show. I would do so no matter what political affiliation he might be claiming this week. I just think he's funny, that's all.

Thew part that struck me as particularly funny about the Mayors last post on this thread is this:

We have always been lead to believe that the left/lib side is the one with all of the compassion, and the least likely to label or call anyone names. Or to make fun of how any one looks. That is supposed to be something that only the evil bigoted right wing does, isn't it?

Now that the left is in full retreat they seem to be terribly fond of hanging labels on pretty much everybody...and also making fun of how people look. Better that, than trying to come up with yet more explanations about why they keep on having to adopt so many ideas from the right in order to survive these days.

"Centering to the Right" as Macdoc has called it.  

But I still worry that they'll get so frustrated at some point that they start hucking rotten tomatoes at everyone. (And stamping their feet and holding their breath until they turn purple.)

I'll be quite a colourful display, though. Bring goggles.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I Watched the Fifth Estate broadcast tonight on Newsworld. The vile right wing statements of ideology as fact and shouting down of discussion by a right winged controlled media makes me sickand angry. Can you say fascist? 

In the Fifth Estate presentation when Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly attacked the young fellow who appeared on O’Reilly’s show because the young fellow’s father died in the World Trade Centre disaster and the young fellow condemned the war in Iraq.

O’Reilly turn on this guest shouted and belittled him to the effect that O’Reilly knew that the young fellow’s father would not agree with the guest’s actions. When all else failed O’Reilly shouted and he threatened to cut off the guests microphone. In the end O”Reilly did.

How scary that the regular viewers and consumers of the “BIG LIES” agree with the liars and bye the lies lock, stock and barrel. Willing to spew the lies as well no doubt.

In my mind “it’s deja vu all over again.” These Right Wing commentators seemingly excel at telling the BIG LIE. If you do not agree with the BIG LIE the opinion of these right wingnuts is you must shut up! Can you say fascist?

Clearly time and again, in the report by the Fifth Estate when faced with contrary information, the Right Wingnuts shouted down any discussion or simply went into denial. They told bald faced lies with conviction. Can you say fascist?

We must denounce these liars. It is futile to take the time and effort to debate them for they will not debate. We just offer them a soap box to spew. However it is far to dangerous not to debated or denounce them.

However when the thoughtful contributors here in Eh Mac Land do debate they provide links to view the “facts and figures” thereby providing us with truth and enlightenment.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not bad, Big DL.

In one single post denouncing the right (by invoking the completely whacko Bill O'Reilly, no less) you managed to say the word "fascist" no less than three times and the word "lies" or "liars" SEVEN times! 

That's almost a record around here. At least since macello got booted back to his basement dwelling.

Congrats. You are a good little disciple. Your handlers are proud of you, I'm sure.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh...and please continue, Big DL. Always good for a giggle or two. 

Feel free. We need some comic relief around here these days.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Question: Macnutt, did you see the Fifth Estate program that is being talked about? If so, then feel free to defend the spokespeople for the Right. If not, I respectfully suggest you make an effort to do so before responding to it......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Socialism 'Beleaguered'*

One of the things I always get giggle from is the seemingly endless supply of pundits predicting that Apple is about to go bankrupt. These folks almost invariably refer to the company as 'beleaguered'.

Especially, when these people are high-profile 'business analysts' this kind of thing is an effort at making self-fulfilling prophesies. If enough people can be convinced that Apple is going bankrupt, they'll stop buying Apple products and devalue the stock enough that the company may suffer.

The continuous repetition of 'Socialism is dead' by MacNutt and other Right wing ideologues is much the same thing. Well, it's the same thing when people who are actually perceived as having a clue say it (which, I admit, is far fewer of them).

However, like Apple, Socialism is far from dead, and is in fact thriving in it's modernized form in social democracies all over Europe, South America and, to a lesser degree, in Canada (despite the best efforts of American covert operatives to destabilize these governments).

While it will always be possible to engage in endless "no it isn't" "yes it is" arguments (a la Monty Python's Argument Clinic), it is fundamentally futile.

Regardless of weather you call it Socialism, what is worth discussing is what we, as Canadians, think are reasonable levels of taxation, and valuable expenditures of our tax dollars. Personally, I think personal income taxes are too high, corporate taxes are too low, and the government ought to be spending more on social programs & the environment (gee...I guess I must be a 'socialist'  )

Cheers


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

I read Al Franken's book, Liars etc.. over Xmas and I wanted to see the Fifth Estates take on the situation. 

It's scary.

To use the World Wrestling formula for television newscasting and call it fair and balanced? Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are able to lie and verbally pummel their guests when they disagree with their views? It's shameful. 

It's worse than Fear Factor. 

If you agree to be on O'Reilly's show, he can make stuff up (examples on Fifth Estate and in Franken's book) and if you argue with him in a polite way or imply that he's wrong, he tells you to "SHUT UP"" ???? There is no intelligent discourse of opposing opinions, only vitriolic name calling. 
It's like the "" I Want to Buy an Argument"" Monty Python sketch only it's not comedy.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*OK you asked for it*



MacNutt said:


> Oh...and please continue, Big DL. Always good for a giggle or two.
> 
> Feel free. We need some comic relief around here these days.


It is amusing when a lefty engages in the over the top hyperbole once in awhile, for the shock factor, it is to be made sport of. 

When a commentator from the right does it, it is fair and balanced. I always thought of you as ironic Macnutt.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

ErnstNL said:


> ...It's scary.
> 
> To use the World Wrestling formula for television newscasting and call it fair and balanced? Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are able to lie and verbally pummel their guests when they disagree with their views? It's shameful...


ErnstNL Well said

It is the verbal violence of these puppet clown bullies with the same intellect and probably appealing to the same demographic as the World Wrestling crowd.

These clowns have to be taken seriously though because of who the puppet’s masters are.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macnutt... I didn't imply these people were crazy simply for the way they looked. On the contrary, somebody who insists on national television that Canada was an active participant in Vietnam, and then gets all defensive with a Canadian News anchor over the fact must be a little bit nuts. Saying on a national news program (Fox), that the US is going to roll over and crush Canada.  

And the other girl they interview.. yes... she did look crazy. And the little fact that *she was charged for stalking her ex-boyfriend!!!*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Mr Mayor....

I personally know about a dozen Canadians who were in combat in Viet Nam. (all of them were enlisted in the US Army or Air Force at the time). Apparently, about fifty thousand Canadians participated in that conflict in some form or other. Is this news to you?

Just because a country chooses not to participate...it doesn't necessarily follow that the citizens of that country automatically stayed out of it. Au contraire...

People from both sides of my Highland family have been involved in pretty much every conflict on this planet since about two days after dirt was invented. I suspect that many other Canadians can say the same.

As for the oddball comparison that was made between Apple and socialism..."both are _Constantly BELEAGURED!!_" (EEEK!)...

Get a life.

Apple is on a major roll these days. It's a long overdue recognition of this platforms innovation and obvious superiority, by the public at large.

Socilaism is in deep retreat these days. Due to it's LACK of innovation and it's obvious inferiority as a political system. This has been clearly recognised by the public at large.

Deal with it. And figure out the difference.

I'll wait here while you do.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Mr Mayor....
> 
> I personally know about a dozen Canadians who were in combat in Viet Nam. (all of them were enlisted in the US Army or Air Force at the time). Apparently, about fifty thousand Canadians participated in that conflict in some form or other. Is this news to you?
> 
> Just because a country chooses not to participate...it doesn't necessarily follow that the citizens of that country automatically stayed out of it. Au contraire...


If you did not see the Fifth Estate report you are missing the point with regard to the reference to Canada participating in Vietnam. 

But like my brother always says “why let the facts get in the way of a ripping good yarn?”


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Go back and re-read my previous post, Big DL. Carefully this time.

I did not say that "Canada had participated in the Viet Nam war"...I said that _Canadians had._

There is a difference. A BIG one. Figure out that difference, and you MIGHT just begin to see why collectivism hasn't fared all that well on the world stage.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

If you keep posting in this thread, the commie pinkos have won!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Go back and re-read my previous post, Big DL. Carefully this time.
> 
> I did not say that "Canada had participated in the Viet Nam war"...I said that _Canadians had._


I repeat, if you haven't seen the Fifth Estate program macnutt, your comments are not relevant to this discussion. Anne Coulter believed Canada was in the Vietnam war (not Canadians who were in US uniforms). She was ignorant of the topics she dished out her vitriolic opinions on. Made her look ridiculous (not that she needs any help in that department).


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Go back and re-read my previous post, Big DL. Carefully this time.
> 
> I did not say that "Canada had participated in the Viet Nam war"...I said that _Canadians had._
> 
> ...


The issue raised by his honour the Mayor and talked about on the Fifth Estate broadcast dealt with Canada's involvement in Vietnam and not Canadians' involvement, but in the *“right world”* why let semantics get in the way of muddying the waters.

Therefore this makes you right! Just like Anne Coulter. 

Sooo! What else is new?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Defending Anne Coulter*

Hold the phone! Is MacNutt going to try and defend Anne Coulter? This should be good. Even many on the right think that she's a complete whack job. And that's just putting it mildly.










Here's a little taste of her wisdom published in one of her columns, speaking about places in the world that terrorists come from:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. ... That's war. And this is war."

Funny, that's also the same logic used by Osama, ... wait, no, even he's not quite that extreme in his public statements. But hey, she's a regular honoured guest on Fox news.

Sorry to those on the right I might offend by using name calling here. But the woman's is clearly unhinged, no rational person would even try and debate with her. And from seeing her on Politically Incorrect a few years ago, I would say that's mostly impossible. She just starts yelling louder than her opponent.

One of her recent pet ideas is an attempt to resuscitate the memory of Joseph McCarthy in her books and columns. She claims he was on the right track but was brought down by a socialistic liberal conspiracy. You can find all her pearls of wisdom spewed all around the net, like pigeon crap under a bridge, or check out one of her sites like anncoulter.org. 

But I would suggest not doing so, if you've just eaten.


----------

