From: bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker)
Subject: European Social democracy vs. American Capitalism
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:50:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.055726.19724@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>ab> Alex Bunker
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>ab> [I]n general blue collar workers and lefty intellectuals belong to the 
>ab> same political party and have the same voting habits. I am talking about 
>ab> a global average here.
>
>gs> You mean a Western European average. Strange how the voting habits and po-
>gs> litical outlook of 250 million Americans counts much less than the same of
>gs> ~300 million Europeans. Methinks you're stuck on the old pre-WWI European
>gs> view of itself, ie, a shining beacon unto the world of groping-in-the-dark
>gs> masses. Sorry, but that just isn't true any more.
>
>ab> I am thinking of not just europe but the entire democratic world including
>ab> Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand etc...
>
>  It really doesn't change my argument, does it? The "entire democratic world"
>  is still a minority. Your "global average" means "average of late-industrial
>  and post-industrial representative democracies", which, considering that the
>  US makes up a fair chunk (population-wise) of that set, means that socialism
>  of the European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealandian variety is far from a
>  massive majority view. Japan is in a separate category, for the most part,
>  as are the mostly-democratic semi-capitalist nations of Taiwan, South Korea,
>  Hong Kong, Singapore, and so on.

Singapore is about at democratic as the Peoples republic of China!

>  In any case, all the countries which have your style of socialism have other
>  parties of lesser or greater socialistic orientation, those parties with a
>  decidedly less leftist bent being ascendant for several years now, at least. 

NOT!
The last european parliamentary elections say the Eurosocialists take
power away from the Christian Demos. CDU in germany is in BIG trouble
and the SDP is gaining popularity etc..

>gs> In any case, your average lefty intellectual is so far removed from basic
>gs> theories on government power, economics, and monetary policies, that it's
>gs> no wonder that wherever and whenever their ideas have been tried, (at best)
>gs> the society as a whole has remained stuck, or has declined. I am including
>gs> Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, and so on here too.
>
>ab> HA HA HA HA HA AH A !!!!!!
>
>ab> This is very funny. You just mentioned a set of countries EVERY one of
>ab> which has a healthier economy than the US as well as being more socially
>ab> advanced.
>
>gs> Prove it. Show that these economies during the period from (say) 1950-today
>gs> have been historically more healthy than the US' economy, controlling for
>gs> non-economic factors, so that we can see whether or not your contention 
>gs> that Eurosocialism is the wave of the present and the future. Also, your
>gs> claims to a greater degree of "social advancement" sound remarkably hollow
>gs> and biased. Where were fascism, Naziism, and Communism invented? Not in 
>gs> the US, I can assure you. Also, which countries started WWI and WWII?
>
>ab> They started WAY behind but in the past 30 years have rocketed past the
>ab> US.
>
>  With little things like the Marshall Plan and the US providing the bulk of
>  their defense helping things a bit. Or have you forgotten that? Also, I
>  wouldn't exactly call their economic advancement "rocketing", generally,
>  when the US economy falters, so do the economies of the nations of West-
>  ern Europe; as the US economy improves, so do the economies of Western
>  Europe; and, to a lesser extent, the reverse direction is true. This is
>  mainly because the US economy is so huge, and also because the strongest
>  economic ties are between the US, Canada, Western Europe, and Japan. 
>  Anyway, why don't you look into statistics like worker productivity, con-
>  sumer price increases, GNP growth, and so on. It's hardly the case that
>  Europe has had unparalleled economic growth since WWII, and the US has
>  been barely hanging on.
>
>ab> Sure Fascism and Communism were bad ideas but so were racism and McCar-
>ab> thyism.
>
>  Europeans aren't racist? Come now! Why do immigrant workers have such a
>  tough time of it, then? Also, you left out Naziism (can't forget that!)
>  and making a parallel between communism and McCarthyism is a little sil-
>  ly. The magnitudes are very far apart.

Where did I say Europeans are not racist?

>ab> And dont tell me fascism never had any following in the USA.
>
>  I didn't say that it didn't, but it has never come close to becoming the
>  predominant political belief, as it did in Italy and Spain. There's kooks
>  in every country, although Europe has had more than its share over the
>  last 100 years or so.
>
>ab> There are more NEO-NAZIs in the USA than Germany.
>
>  Can you prove this? In any case, US Nazis have never gotten significant
>  political power, which can't be said for German Nazis.

I am talking about NOW mr stuck in history.

>ab> It is my beilef that social democracy is the path of the future. Only
>ab> time will prove me right or wrong. Personally I would much rather live
>ab> in a social democratic country because it has all the things which I
>ab> personally find to be what I call "advanced". It is mostly a matter of
>ab> opinions and priorities.
>
>  And how much force you're willing to expend to create your "priorities".
>  It all comes down to how much raw physical violence the government is
>  willing to use to create the society some number of its members desire.
>  Since your perfect society requires a much larger and more powerful gov-
>  ernment than mine does, I'd say the odds that your society will degener-
>  ate and become tyrannical are much greater.
>
>gs> The US is declining, as are all other countries, in direct proportion to 
>gs> the amount of State control over the economy.
>
>ab> No, Germany and france have far MORE government involvment in thier econ-
>ab> omies and are doing far BETTER because of it.
>
>  How can you know this? The XUSSR government had total control over its 
>  economy, yet its economy crumbled disastrously. Obviously, there is some
>  point of government control beyond which the economy won't work. I believe
>  this point is much less than where you believe it should be, and I use 
>  the US economy as an example. The more government control there has been,
>  the less-well the economy has functioned.

The child poverty rate in the us is 30X that of sweden. and 20X that of
germany. Oh gee you think this is some coincidence? NOT! these governments
have waged a WAR ON POVERTY instead of a war on drugs.

>ab> They have LESS POVERTY CRIME AND no "poverty trap".
>
>  You needn't yell. Anyway, how can you determine the causative mechanism be-
>  tween the degree of government control of the economy and how much crime,
>  poverty, etc. there is? One would have to look at historical statistics
>  and determine if there is a causative relationship between the two, and I
>  don't think it's possible to prove it.
>
>ab> Government NONINTERVENTION does not cause this. wise and well thought out
>ab> government INTERVENTION does this.
>
>  "Wise and well thought out government intervention" is oxymoronic.

Germany and Japan both do it.

>ab> These countries are kicking the US economic butt by government involvment
>ab> in economic policy.
>
>gs> I guess this explains why the socialists are getting kicked out, and those
>gs> that remain are dropping their socialist ideals very quickly.
>
>ab> What ARE you talking about here? Please I hope you are not stupid enough
>ab> to confuse the eastern european communists with western european social
>ab> democrats.
>
>  No, I'm talking Kinnock being beaten, Mitterand just holding on, the Swedes
>  knocking down their top tax rates, the Norweigians being highly dissatisfied
>  with their socialists, &c.

See above Kinnock made one of the biggest seat gains for a political party
i a single election in British history. The cons. just had too strong an
encumbancy factor. They wont have that next time and they will lose.
What you say about Norway is about 2 years out of date. Mitterand is just
the victim of a cranky electrorate the right is no more popular.

>gs> I wonder what your parents and grandparents have to say about the US.
>
>ab> My mother was a refugee from Hungary in 1956. She HATES what the US did
>ab> as much as she did the exUSSR. They did not care one shit for Hungarian
>ab> wellbeing or lives. When the war was hopeless and Soviet troops were pour-
>ab> ing across the border, Radio Free America broadcast "Keep up the good fight
>ab> we are coming to help you" when they had no intention of helping and
>ab> 100s of young Hungarians lost their life in a hopeless fight as a result
>ab> in order keep the attention of the USSR away from other matters that the
>ab> US had geopolitical intersts in. 
>
>  What would you have preferred the US do? Come stomping in with full military
>  force? Then your wonderful Europe would have been turned into a smoking
>  radioactive wasteland. Would the short-term survival of some Hungarians
>  been worth a nuclear war between the US and USSR? I wasn't aware the lives
>  of some thousands or tens of thousands of Hungarians were worth more than
>  the lives of tens of millions of Soviets, Americans, British, French, Ger-
>  mans, Italians, &c. As it was, the US pushed the Soviets hard enough over
>  the last decade to cause their empire to fall without a shot being fired.
>  I prefer that course. I'm sorry your mother feels otherwise, but when
>  nukes are involved, the equation shifts a bit. Besides, why didn't the
>  other Europeans step in and help?

I can not believe how you COMPLETELY misse the point here. She 
DEFINATELY did NOT want the US to get involved She is a pacifist.
She is angry because they LIED on radio free America in order to
encourage 100s of hungarians to needlessly lose their lives
in order to be a small thorn in the USSR side to help
the US with geopolitical interests elsewhere in the world.

>gs> I take your views as seriously as I take those of college-age Americans,
>gs> which is to say that they "benefit" from having all of 5 years worth of
>gs> memories, and an accompanying inability to understand history or the rea-
>gs> sons why things are the way they are. You are the same way. It's really
>gs> quite easy to become oh-so-stereotypically-European-snobbish towards the
>gs> US, because you don't remember or understand the role the US has played
>gs> since WWI in keeping Europe at least semi-stable and prosperous. 
>
>ab> Should the people of the world pay permanent homage to the American
>ab> people for a historic act? 
>
>  No, but it ought to be remembered. Look at it this way -- between 1945 and
>  1949, the US had a complete monopoly on nuclear weapons and could have 
>  demanded any behavior it wanted from any nation. Instead, it offered to
>  unilaterally disarm itself, the only condition being that all other coun-
>  tries stop their own development of nuclear weapons. That opportune moment
>  was lost, however. Anyway, the point is that the US has often extended a
>  helping hand to its former enemies (Germany and Japan) whereas the other
>  major victor of WWII, the USSR, enslaved the millions under its control.

OH WOW THANKYOU USA FOR NOT ENSLAVING US!!!!!!!!!!

>  I'm not saying that you should be "eternally" grateful, but at least rec-
>  ognize the role the US has played in helping to keep Europe stable, and
>  protected from the USSR. Without its efforts, I wonder if Europe would
>  even be around.
>
>gs> Again, your narrow view prevents you from understanding that when you say
>gs> "most countries", you mean "most Western European countries".
>
>ab> Japan, NZ, Australia, Brazil , Chile, Venezuela, Namibia are of course 
>ab> ALL european countries. OH my Europe is BIG!
>
>  Your last four are rather odd additions to the list. Brazil's Collor is
>  in *deep* trouble, Chile managed to do quite well under Pinochet, com-
>  pared to other South American countries run by the military, and Venez-
>  uela is currently in a decidedly non-democratic state, courtesy Fujimoro.
>  And why do you include Namibia? Why not include Cuba, Angola, Somalia?
>
HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AH HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
Fujimori President of Venesuela 
HOH!HO!HO!HO! HA HA AH!
Fujimori is President of PERU
Are you by any chance Dan Quayle posting under a pseudonym?
I was referring to the socialist OPPOSITION in
Brazil whose presidential candidate Lula de Silva
got 49% in the presidential election.
and with Collars troubles is set to take power next time
In Chile the left is ascendant.
Namibia has recently got its independence and has had a UN sponsored el
election which the left won by a landslide.(SWAPO)
The Social Democrats also won the first free election in Nigeria,
Africa's most populous nation.

>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

Alex Bunker
(the social-democratic secualar humanist)

Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc