I am seeking examples...

[Wake]

...of nations negatively affected by socialism. I need to build a platform that indicates as proof to the naive as to why socialism is a failed political concept.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Go to school!!!

 

[Hoplite]

...of nations negatively affected by socialism. I need to build a platform that indicates as proof to the naive as to why socialism is a failed political concept.

First, we start by understanding that intellectually honest people dont start out with a conclusion then try to build a case around that.

 

[PeteEU]

...of nations negatively affected by socialism. I need to build a platform that indicates as proof to the naive as to why socialism is a failed political concept.

And what does this have to do with Europe?

 

[spud_meister]

And what does this have to do with Europe?

Everyone knows the entirety of the European continent is socialist.

 

[PeteEU]

Everyone knows the entirety of the European continent is socialist.

Ahh, so the Conservative governments of the UK, France, Germany, Denmark and so on are in reality commies?

 

[spud_meister]

Ahh, so the Conservative governments of the UK, France, Germany, Denmark and so on are in reality commies?

Of course, they're European, they have to be.

 

[PeteEU]

Of course, they're European, they have to be.

ya of course...

But.. considering that most American's, Canadians, and Aussies are descendent of Europeans, then that must mean that they too are commies.. after all being a commie must be inherited since we in Europe are commies.. now and 40 years ago.

 

[spud_meister]

ya of course...

But.. considering that most American's, Canadians, and Aussies are descendent of Europeans, then that must mean that they too are commies.. after all being a commie must be inherited since we in Europe are commies.. now and 40 years ago.

Yeah, now you're getting it. :mrgreen:

 

[PeteEU]

Yeah, now you're getting it. :mrgreen:

Omfgs, so you are a commie too? And the OP too? OMFGS we are all commies!!!

 

[Djoop]

Our country used to be so much better when we still had 14 hr workdays and child labour...

 

[William Rea]

Our country used to be so much better when we still had 14 hr workdays and child labour...

Therein lies the lesson.

Every Social and Political concession from the ruling class that we enjoy today has been fought for (sometimes literally).

So why do we relinquish them so easily?

 

[German guy]

...of nations negatively affected by socialism. I need to build a platform that indicates as proof to the naive as to why socialism is a failed political concept.

Others have pointed out their problems with your posting already, with good reason ... but I want to give a serious answer for a change:

There are bad experiences with socialism in Europe: The Soviet Union and its socialist satellites -- East Germany, Poland, Hungary and so on -- were ruled by socialist dictatorships until 1989/90. That was bad, because the people had no say, their freedoms were violated, including basic civil and human rights.

If you are American, that might confuse you, but this brand of Soviet socialist dictatorship has almost nothing at all to do with democratic socialism, social democracy or social liberalism that existed and still exists in Western Europe. Also, these socialist dictatorships were not bad because they had public healthcare. They were bad because they wiretapped and controlled people, because they extralegally detained people, denied them fair trials and tortured them. There was no freedom of speech, no independent fair judicary, and people were not allowed to leave the country as they pleased.

I don't blame Americans who don't get this, and who don't get the difference between socialist dictatorship and liberal social democracy, because you never had to live under such a Soviet regime, unlike half of my country and half of Europe. If you had, you'd maybe see that there are worse things than public healthcare, and what tyranny actually is. Also, you'd see that socialism is not always socialism, and you'd be more precize when using this label. Maybe you'd even stop giving up the very freedoms that distinguish free Western democracy from dictatorship (socialist or otherwise) in the name of fighting some boogeyman (today, it's Muslims). Hundreds of thousands of people went on the streets to protest for their freedom in 1989/90, and you give up many of the precious freedoms they fought for voluntarily.

A while ago, I visited a former Stasi prison in East Berlin (Stasi was the socialist East German secret police) that now is a museum, and former political prisoners give tours there as guides. The former prisoner showed me the little cells were people were extralegally held, denied fair trials, waterboarded, exposed to "harsh interrogation" and broken. He had tears in his eyes when he told about his liberation in 1989/90, when the Berlin Wall fell, the socialist dictatorship collapsed and he was set free. But soon, he got very sad and explained that he believes this victory may have been in vein, because the self-declared "leader of the free world" does exactly the same today, as official policy, what his people went on the streets against.

 

[Moot]

".... But soon, he got very sad and explained that he believes this victory may have been in vein, because the self-declared "leader of the free world" does exactly the same today, as official policy, what his people went on the streets against.

Can you explain in more detail what "official policies" and who is "the self-declared "leader of the free world" " you are referring to? Because it looks like you are referring to Obama.

 

[German guy]

Can you explain in more detail what "official policies" and who is "the self-declared "leader of the free world" " you are referring to? Because it looks like you are referring to Obama.

I mean America and the American governments, regardless if the President is named Clinton, Bush or Obama. Clinton has set the first precedents for this official policy, Bush extremely expanded it and Obama failed to end it entirely. I mean the policy of extralegal detention, denial of fair trials for mere suspects, "harsh interrogations" that everybody in the world except of American Republicans consider torture.

Don't get me wrong, I like America. America has made great historical achievements, and also thanks to America among others, I can live in freedom today. But these policies are just wrong, and they fly in the face of every claim that was ever made from American side to defend freedom and human rights. You can't just give up your most basic values, even if that's just limited and temporary, just because you are afraid and they have become inconvenient. The little extra security is not worth it, either you respect these values or you aren't free. Risk is the price of freedom.

Because of these policies that were excessively expanded in the Patriot Act, I think Bush is not a President that deserves any credit, he has played away any moral credit he ever had, and severely damaged America in the process. I hoped for a change under Obama, but except for a few cosmetic changes, this "change" did not take place. And the hypocrites who now go on the streets against Obama are just too greedy to pay taxes, they don't even care about these blatant human right violations, they don't even know what "big government" really is. It's sad, really.

Many people in my country have very recent vivid first-hand memories of a "big government" that is not just a little inconvenient, because taxes are too high -- no, they remember a government so big that it would imprison people at free will, deny them fair trials and torture them. That's what socialism is, that's what tyranny is, that's what "big government" is.

If you want to know why especially Bush and the Republicans are so unpopular in Europe, look at this. That's why. They remind us too much of our experience with socialism.

 

[reefedjib]

I mean America and the American governments, regardless if the President is named Clinton, Bush or Obama. Clinton has set the first precedents for this official policy, Bush extremely expanded it and Obama failed to end it entirely. I mean the policy of extralegal detention, denial of fair trials for mere suspects, "harsh interrogations" that everybody in the world except of American Republicans consider torture.

Don't get me wrong, I like America. America has made great historical achievements, and also thanks to America among others, I can live in freedom today. But these policies are just wrong, and they fly in the face of every claim that was ever made from American side to defend freedom and human rights. You can't just give up your most basic values, even if that's just limited and temporary, just because you are afraid and they have become inconvenient. The little extra security is not worth it, either you respect these values or you aren't free. Risk is the price of freedom.

Because of these policies that were excessively expanded in the Patriot Act, I think Bush is not a President that deserves any credit, he has played away any moral credit he ever had, and severely damaged America in the process. I hoped for a change under Obama, but except for a few cosmetic changes, this "change" did not take place. And the hypocrites who now go on the streets against Obama are just too greedy to pay taxes, they don't even care about these blatant human right violations, they don't even know what "big government" really is. It's sad, really.

Many people in my country have very recent vivid first-hand memories of a "big government" that is not just a little inconvenient, because taxes are too high -- no, they remember a government so big that it would imprison people at free will, deny them fair trials and torture them. That's what socialism is, that's what tyranny is, that's what "big government" is.

If you want to know why especially Bush and the Republicans are so unpopular in Europe, look at this. That's why. They remind us too much of our experience with socialism.

They are enemy combatants. They are not soldiers, caught as POWs. They are not citizens or illegal aliens. As such they have no "right to trial', there is no problem detaining them, "harsh interrogation" can be used. Simple. No loss of freedoms for Americans.

 

[Hoplite]

No loss of freedoms for Americans.

And at the end of the day, that's all that matters, right?

 

[reefedjib]

And at the end of the day, that's all that matters, right?

Indeed. If there were loss of freedoms for Americans, he may have a point - but there is not.

 

[German guy]

They are enemy combatants. They are not soldiers, caught as POWs. They are not citizens or illegal aliens. As such they have no "right to trial', there is no problem detaining them, "harsh interrogation" can be used. Simple. No loss of freedoms for Americans.

I was under the impression that the term is "human rights". Human. But my fault -- apparently, I was under the wrong impression that all people regardless of nationality have inalienable rights and that America's claims to fight for the good are more than just empty rhetoric.

Good luck winning hearts and minds, and setting a good example others look up to and are willing to emulate.

 

[German guy]

sorry, double post

 

[reefedjib]

I was under the impression that the term is "human rights". Human. But my fault -- apparently, I was under the wrong impression that all people regardless of nationality have inalienable rights and that America's claims to fight for the good are more than just empty rhetoric.

Good luck winning hearts and minds, and setting a good example others look up to and are willing to emulate.

Sure, human rights....unless you are caught on the battlefield, in no uniform, waging combat against American or native forces.

 

[German guy]

Indeed. If there were loss of freedoms for Americans, he may have a point - but there is not.

The CIA has kidnapped German citizens from the streets in Germany, then detained and tortured them, instead of going the way of invoking the authorities in the free, democratic republican constitutional German state. German authorities had no choice but issuing arrest warrents against the according CIA members for kidnapping and other charges. But America protects these thugs and refuses to deliver them.

Is that what you had in mind when you liberated my country from Nazist dictatorship, teaching us what a Constitution is, what fair trials are and what freedom is?

 

[German guy]

Sure, human rights....unless you are caught on the battlefield, in no uniform, waging combat against American or native forces.

Since 1648, there is the old European tradition of war law, meaning some things are a no-no even in war. The Geneva Convention America has signed too defines some of these rights: Either you treat such people as criminals, or as prisoners of war. Bush's shysters used legal loopholes to create such an extralegal state for some people, twisting words. And that the according people have been "caught on the battlefield" is a blatant lie. Many have been kidnapped right from their homes, some from the streets of allied republics.

Sorry, but maybe these vein rhetorics bickering and twisting words are good enough to sell darkness for light to certain American right-wingers, but it definitely does not convince anybody else on this planet. If that's what you want the rest of the world to think of America, go ahead and defend the undefendable. But wrong stays wrong, and kidnapping people, denying them fair trials and torturing them IS wrong, no matter how many nice words you find.

 

[reefedjib]

The CIA has kidnapped German citizens from the streets in Germany, then detained and tortured them, instead of going the way of invoking the authorities in the free, democratic republican constitutional German state. German authorities had no choice but issuing arrest warrents against the according CIA members for kidnapping and other charges. But America protects these thugs and refuses to deliver them.

Is that what you had in mind when you liberated my country from Nazist dictatorship, teaching us what a Constitution is, what fair trials are and what freedom is?

Defending freedom can be ugly sometimes.

 

[German guy]

Defending freedom can be ugly sometimes.

Agreed. But you can't just give up this freedom voluntarily and stay credible. And not always do the ends justify the means.

So now we have prison camps to "defend freedom". What's next? Which crime is too big to be justified with the claim of "defending freedom"?