America

[teatsfan]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

An important skill in a discussion is the ability to hear what others say. I feel there is a potent irony in people criticising America as fascist and a police state and being themselves intolerant of opposed views and unwilling to stomach contradiction.

I feel there is a potent irony in people patronisingly lecturing others off the high horse, while they themselves completely avoid response to the points being made. I'm very receptive towards actual arguments, and all I got was a funny pic. Ah well...
This is not about views that need to be discussed and evaluated, even less in some jovial, joking manner; the facts are out there, there are no doubts about them.

Funny thing is the same people who are so oblivious to the facts will QQ the hardest when the shit hits the fan.

[billybunter]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Option D: "Not what I think?"

An important skill in a discussion is the ability to hear what others say. I feel there is a potent irony in people criticising America as fascist and a police state and being themselves intolerant of opposed views and unwilling to stomach contradiction.

My comment about America becoming a police state is based on my own experience. I feel much the same way about many other countries. It was not my intension to offend anyone, only to encourage debate. Keyboards are not like a human voice and can get misconstrued.

[billybunter]

Originally Posted by bombermouse

Speaking as an American, like all nations, the USA is neither as good as its manic boosters believe nor as bad as its harsh critics believe. US Americans as a whole do seem to believe in their right to be addressed in English and given special consideration anywhere in the world.

Why "special consideration?" If you visit a non English speaking country you must respect their language and their culture.

[Brecht]

Progressive minds in Europe have been looking up to America back in the 19th century when we were still struggling with oppressive monarchies. But let's not forget the distorted definition of freedom according to leading figures in US history onwards. Let's not forget slavery, anti-labour violence, carried out by state authority in a coalition with corporate thugs, racial segregation and all the wars initiated by US business circles and their government henchmen, all in the name of the American people and democracy.
So, let's not confuse the common working man in America with his government. Those in charge of politics and economy have found a way of manufacturing consent among US population by pushing their own private interests, fabricated as patriotism and freedom, upon the rest. To return to my first sentence, there was a highly conscious and rising working class back in the 19th century which many European socialists, communists and anarchists took as a model. People in America were aware of their rights in an allegedly democratic society.
After WW2 and the absence of competition on the global market, especially Europe, the US were able to accumulate the biggest wealth in human history. With this, a bigger part of the cake was available for the population. Up until the early 70ies, most of the production was absorbed on domestic market. Remember, like all the other advanced industrial nations (most notably in Europe and Japan), the US adopted the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes but the crisis of keynesianism in the late 60ies, the US government began to turn to neo-liberalism as the alternative. It was an obscure ideology, advocated by a minority of economists who began to take over the most important positions in the financial system and politics. One example is Paul Volcker who took charge of the Federal Reserve in 1979. What happened from the early 70ies has already been pointed out by a few good posts here.
The global wars led by the US are carried at the expense of important aspects of living standards. If you want to understand why Iraq was invaded (and you can adopt this example to any other war), let's take what Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, promulgated on September 19th, 2003: "the full privatization of public enterprises, full ownership rights by foreign firms of Iraqi businesses, full repatriation of foreign
profits . . . the opening of Iraq’s banks to foreign control, national
treatment for foreign companies and . . . the elimination of nearly
all trade barriers". Besides, an experiment was forced upon the Iraqi people, with the aim to launch it at home if succesful in the periphery. It was the so-called flat tax.
Same happened in Chile after the "first 9/11" 1973. A democratically elected president (Salvador Allende) was overthrown by a military junta, backed by the US government, and both the US and Chilean business elites. Chile was supposed to be the first experimental attempt to create a neo-liberal state, conceived by group of economists known as the "Chicago Boys". They were students of Milton Friedman, professor at the University of Chicago (hence their nickname). All of this was planned behind the backs but carried out in the front of the American people. And it had huge impact on their social and economic lifes.
Democracy is being dismantled again and people are starting to realize that. Despite all its weaknesses, the Occupy movement is a good example to illustrate.

[teatsfan]

@BB

[billybunter]

Originally Posted by teatsfan

@BB

Is that directed at me? If so I don't understand.

[Nobody1]

Ok, this is only my personal view of things.

I may be wrong, but i think the deadly decline of the U.S. began with the so much cheered collapse of the USSR. As it is in the real economy. Competition is good for business. The ultra capitalism in the U.S. competed with a socialist system in the Soviet Union for the political favor of humanity. One can also observe this principle in physics. A battery can only work if it has two poles.

What then followed was the social monopoly of the capitalist system. Who is a little familiar with economic theory knows what a monopoly can cause. It destroys everything, in the end even itself.

One have to mention here that the USSR wasn't a communist state. There were still a long way to go for a real classless society. And please my american friends, don't come to the conclusion here in Europe there would exist something resembling to a socialist system. This isn't the case. Just look at Greece, where the Onassis heiress now is looking into the garbage cans for food.

Even here in good old Germany are the ice-cold rules of the free market.

[Brecht]

I agree with you, Nobody1. But the economic decline began much earlier. It's the political decline and that of it's global image America faced after the collapse of the USSR. Until then, the US government was successful by convincing its citizens of the world police role. After the Soviet Union dissapeared, the official reason to intervene worldwide was gone, so a new bogeyman had to be drummed into the minds of the people.

[teatsfan]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

The ultra capitalism in the U.S. competed with a socialist system in the Soviet Union for the political favor of humanity.
What then followed was the social monopoly of the capitalist system. Who is a little familiar with economic theory knows what a monopoly can cause. It destroys everything, in the end even itself.

That sounds nicely rounded up on paper, but what happened exactly in the process? On the other hand there are many cases of economic/social monopolies that persevere.

My opinion is that the "deadly decline of the U.S." as you call it, the seemingly neverending economic crisis, is intentional. The big players are skimming the cream, on a global scale (a wide topic).

Originally Posted by Nobody1

And please my american friends, don't come to the conclusion here in Europe there would exist something resembling to a socialist system. This isn't the case.

Erm... so the principle of "profits being privatised and losses being socialised" (burdened onto the public = tax payer) is not socialism?


EDIT:

Originally Posted by Norbert84

Until then, the US government was successful by convincing its citizens of the world police role. After the Soviet Union dissapeared, the official reason to intervene worldwide was gone, so a new bogeyman had to be drummed into the minds of the people.

And that new bogeyman was "international terrorism" How nicely that fit. And then evil Saddam (who decided to sell his oil for euros instead of dollars) had WMDs (which were never found), so, to protect the world peace and human rights, ... ...

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by teatsfan

That sounds nicely rounded up on paper, but what happened exactly in the process? On the other hand there are many cases of economic/social monopolies that persevere.

No teatsfan, a monopoly can't work long term without ending up in slavery. George Orwell knew this.

Originally Posted by teatsfan

Erm... so the principle of "profits being privatised and losses being socialised" (burdened onto the public = tax payer) is not socialism?

Again, no it is not. In a socialist system there is no such thing like private profit. "profits being privatised and losses being socialised" is simply a stupid mess, but has nothing to do with socialism.