Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the early years of the Cold War, it was popular to depict Communism as a monolithic entity bent upon dominating the globe; the dark days of the 1930's, buffeted on both ends by the brutalities of total, industrialized warfare, were convincing evidence that the spread of parliamentary democracy and the open markets that nurtured and sustained it were in peril -- Hitler was depicted as "right-wing", but the official name of his policies was national Socialism; neither the Marxists nor the Nazis had any respect for individual efforts, or individual rights.
But Communism and Socialist aren't only Marxism or National Socialist. People look at the USSR or even more extreme cases as an example but there have been somewhat positive examples of socialism such as the ones that has been witnessed in Yugoslavia, so much so that there are several people who want the 80s to return. Things started getting out of control in Yugoslavia only in the mid-late 80s due to the reawakening of nationalism because otherwise it was a fairly successful country where living standards were at the same level (or close) to Greece, Spain, ecc.
For a contrast to Marxism and National Socialism look at Democratic Socialism
And who the **** cares that my country hasn't been relevant for decades? It acutally is (we are the 8th economy in the world; a country which has inspired the whole of the West from a cultural standpoint in artistic, literary fields; the place who used to be the wealthiest in the West at least up until the 18th century) but even if it weren't, it isn't something i would care about
This defense shows that you have ran out of arguments and you have to resort to this
Apologies, I was answering someone who equally had very little to add to the conversation so I stooped to his/her level. Half of my friends are of Italian descent so, on a personal level, my life has been enriched quite a bit by Italians. And yes, it has influenced mankind more than 95% of the world's nations combined.
Quote:
No, it's because there is the concept that the more the better in your country. It seems to me that a higher percentage of Americans live to work rather than work to live. You have been infected by the most negatives aspects of capitalism and you aren't even aware of it.
Well, we are Europeans at the most basic level so, we are you on steroids. In other words, we are you when you are given a massive continent, with huge resources, huge wealth, huge opportunity and freedom.
Conversely, if we Americans were given a comparatively compact and crowded continent, we would start driving smaller cars, living in smaller apartments and work less.
Last edited by Mr. Joshua; 06-16-2016 at 08:12 AM..
I would argue the contrary. You, sir, have seem to have superiority complex. Canada has its s&%t together these days, unless you're judging by "average winter temperature of cities in southern parts of each country," it's in absolutely no means inferior to the USA. That's a fact.
But Communism and Socialist aren't only Marxism or National Socialist. People look at the USSR or even more extreme cases as an example but there have been somewhat positive examples of socialism such as the ones that has been witnessed in Yugoslavia, so much so that there are several people who want the 80s to return. Things started getting out of control in Yugoslavia only in the mid-late 80s due to the reawakening of nationalism because otherwise it was a fairly successful country where living standards were at the same level (or close) to Greece, Spain, ecc.
For a contrast to Marxism and National Socialism look at Democratic Socialism
To return to the American situation for the present, American conservatives tend to cluster around two poles -- "traditionalists" who base their agenda upon religious and nationalistic absolutes, and "libertarians" who ground their philosophy in a belief that the principles of economic and personal liberty are unitary and indivisible. Both groups identify with the evolution of a constitutional system founded and refined while isolated from the class-consciousness social hierarchy common to Europe during the early years of the Enlightenment, but reconciling this to the "peculiar institution" (slavery) which was a dominant factor in 1/3 to 1/2 (depending on how it's defined) of the United States can be a stretch.
But it needs to be remembered that, with the exception of the Native peoples and the people brought here in slave ships (and some of whom caught on quickly once given the opportunity) the most successful features of the American Experiment were developed by rebels, outcasts, and misfits who came here mostly to escape the limitations of Europe's structure. That is the root principle behind what has been defined and promoted as "American exceptionalism" -- a term which I've only heard in fairly recent years.
I can't speculate too much on what our reaction will be in the wake of the emergence of a global economy, a "de-industrialization" occasioned by the loss of core industries to low-wage economies, and an electorate more representative of all the groups which used to get a "second-class ticket" in the days dominated by white male patriarchy. I believe that the single greatest factor in the American success story was the gradual expansion of participation in the democratic process far beyond the closed society of landed white males who created it, so that those who participated did so with what they had to lose more in mind that what might be gained by political influence.
That concept is now being challenged by the leadership of the Democrats, who have succeeded in dividing and fragmenting their traditional opposition, and seem to be determined to use a larger, softer "safety net" as a means to build a one-party faux democracy along the lines of what has existed in Mexico since the late Twenties.
In my opinion, Americans have an aversion to the truth.
A nation cannot progress when its people and politicians pretend to live in a utopia, where it is politically incorrect to scrutinise things. One who questions norms should be listened to, rather than shunned or frowned upon.
Fortunately, things are gradually starting to change. For the sake of their country, I hope that more will continue to wake up.
I would argue the contrary. You, sir, have seem to have superiority complex. Canada has its s&%t together these days, unless you're judging by "average winter temperature of cities in southern parts of each country," it's in absolutely no means inferior to the USA. That's a fact.
In my opinion, Americans have an aversion to the truth.
A nation cannot progress when its people and politicians pretend to live in a utopia, where it is politically incorrect to scrutinise things. One who questions norms should be listened to, rather than shunned or frowned upon.
Fortunately, things are gradually starting to change. For the sake of their country, I hope that more will continue to wake up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
