Interesting and gritty interview with a Tibetan monk

[Sunya]

mikaelz, maybe you should stop ripping off of my thoughts.

 

Read MY quote here from page 1.

 

Communism does not have stages. Totalitarian is the complete opposite of Communism; your judgments of USSR as Communist are totally wrong. You also judge Socialism with the same regard.

 

I'm not ripping off your thoughts..You said:

 

Defending communism is worse than defending Nazism....maybe you are the one without any shame?

 

Defending repeated genocides....You are sick and twisted.

 

You are equating communism with totalitarianism. NOBODY is defending totalitarianism. NOBODY is defending fascism. I was critiquing capitalism, and so were others. The alternative to capitalism is NOT JUST totalitarianism. There are other alternatives. The world isn't so black and white.

 

According to you, the world is Cold War era. There are Capitalists and there are Communists. A] the world has changed. B] Soviets were not truly Communist.

 

Communism is an ideal. Its a utopian ideal. It has never existed. You're judging the alternative to capitalism as fascism and totalitarianism. Though Hitler and Stalin pretended they were socialist, they weren't. Socialism is not a dictatorship control. True socialism has never existed either.

 

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation;[4] often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.[5]

 

Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[7]

Edited April 24, 2010 by mikaelz

[gendao]

Communism does not have stages. Totalitarian is the complete opposite of Communism; your judgments of USSR as Communist are totally wrong. You also judge Socialism with the same regard.

Not at all.

 

Communism centralizes all power to the State. Which is then run by a tiny cabal of tyrants. Ergo...totalitarianism! That's what happens when you give up all your individual power to someone else.

 

The real initial goal of Communism was inciting organized class warfare for regime change. The longterm goal is the global centralization of power known as the NW0.

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

 

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Actually, the proletarians had far more to lose than their "chains" - 140 million of them lost their very lives. The Hegelian agitators tooled these poor people like ants to do their dirty work for them. And once their midterm goals were met - disposed of them like dirty asswipes.

 

The difference between "proletarian" movements like Marxism vs say, the Ron Paul Revolution is that one was heavily-funded by backroom bankers & the other is a true grassroots movement, for the people, by the people. It's very important to recognize the difference here. Millions of lives could be at stake.

1848: Karl Marx, an Ashkenazi Jew, publishes, "The Communist Manifesto." Interestingly at the same time as he is working on this, Karl Ritter of Frankfurt University was writing the antithesis which would form the basis for Freidrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's, "Nietzscheanism." This Nietzecheanism was later developed into Fascism and then into Nazism and was used to forment the first and second world wars.

 

Marx, Ritter, and Nietzsche were all funded and under the instruction of the Rothschilds. The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies to enable them to divide larger and larger factions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other, and particularly, to destroy all political and religious institutions. The same plan put forward by Weishaupt in 1776.

Keep in mind that NAZI was short for "National Socialist" & USSR for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." As opposed to say, "German Fascist" or "Soviet Totalitarianism." You have to be fluent in Orwellian Doublespeak & read behind the headlines to truly understand what is going on in global realpolitik. Unfortunately, most proletarians can't - which is why they are courted first by aspiring despots to gain enough power to eventually become fascist & brutally totalitarian.

 

Again, people aren't going to support a despot directly into power. So, he has to bait & switch them into it. Hence, large, banker-funded, prefab "movements" that are pushed on the people are typically for the bankers' benefit...not the peoples'.

Edited April 25, 2010 by vortex

[Sunya]

Not at all.

 

Communism centralizes all power to the State. Which is then run by a tiny cabal of tyrants. Ergo...totalitarianism! That's what happens when you give up all your individual power to someone else.

 

The real initial goal of Communism was inciting organized class warfare for regime change. The longterm goal is the global centralization of power known as the NW0.Actually, the proletarians had far more to lose than their "chains" - 140 million of them lost their very lives. The Hegelian agitators tooled these poor people like ants to do their dirty work for them. And once their midterm goals were met - disposed of them like dirty asswipes.

 

Nah that's bullshit. Real (pure) communism is stateless. I will repeat for the 50th time. Real communism/socialism never existed. Stop comparing it to failed fascist experiments.

 

Btw, your quote is hilarious. Nietzsche led to fascism? funded by Rothchilds? Hah! You've obviously never read Nietzsche if you believe that.. nor have you studied history. His writings were manipulated/altered by his sister's husband who was a fascist leader. His original writings exist, which weren't altered, and they are in publication today. If you read them you'll see that Nietzsche was anti-nationalism anti-race [didn't even believe in the idea] and completely anti-fascist. He was against institutions of any kind.

Edited April 25, 2010 by mikaelz

[S-Curve]

Defending communism is worse than defending Nazism....maybe you are the one without any shame?

 

Defending repeated genocides....You are sick and twisted.

 

 

I'm not defending anything.

 

Can you even define the word communism?

[goldisheavy]

Vortex,

 

Why don't you read up on Communism:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

 

For the record, I think the problems that Communist thinkers have pointed out in society, are real, and need to be addressed. I never suggested that Communism should be a solution to those problems.

 

For example, I think Ron Paul is correct in noticing the problems with fiat money and fractional reserve banking. Ron Paul offers a gold-standard as a solution. I strongly disagree with Ron Paul's solution. I strongly agree with Ron Paul's diagnosis of the problem though.

 

You see how you can agree with someone's formulation and diagnosis of the problem, while you can disagree with their solutions? It is possible!

 

Just because I think wealth disparity is a bad thing, does not mean I am out to steal your stuff. I don't want your stuff. You can keep it. I don't give a fuck about your stuff. Enjoy it. Fuck your stuff. Stick your stuff in your arse. Sleep with your stuff. Marry your stuff. I don't care. I do begin to care when you use your stuff as a leverage and means to fuck with my life though.

 

I am not hot for Communism or for Socialism. I am not hot for Capitalism. I like freedom. I like democracy. I like freedom of speech and I support freedom to bear arms. I support free enterprise when it's reasonable, socially responsible, and moral. I like small business. I dislike big business. I dislike big corporations. I like small to medium sized corporations if they are moral. I detest health insurance companies as they currently exist. I detest finance "industry." I think starting a business should be easy and non-bureaucratic. I think businesses should grow organically and not rely on leverage/loans (The Ben and Jerry model of business growth vs Amazon model). Leverage is evil. More leverage is more evil. Fractional reserve banking is evil. The way our current money works is evil. Gold standard is also evil.

 

I prefer a society that aims for sustainability instead of unsustainable and environmentally dangerous explosive exponential growth.

 

Educated people tend to have fewer children later in life -- this is good -- helps us control population growth. Uneducated people have more children earlier in life -- this is bad. Religions are bad. Religious extremism is extremely bad. Moderate religionism is only moderately bad. Non-dogmatism is good. Critical thinking is good. Consensus is good. Authoritarianism is bad. Over-reliance on experts is bad. Over-reliance on credentials is bad.

 

Monopoly is very evil and should be mostly outlawed. Cable infrastructure companies should be separated from ISPs. A company that lays cable in the ground can be granted a monopoly, but companies that provide internet service on top of those physical lines should compete among each other and should be completely prohibited from laying their own cables. Currently companies can lay their own cable AND provide service on top of that cable, which creates a conflict of interest and restricts competition.

 

I like competition. Sometimes competition should be created through laws (like forcefully breaking some monopolies) and by force.

 

I also like collaboration. Companies should collaborate more. As an example, many companies can collaborate on a common tech platform, like Android. And they can compete by offering various services on top of that common platform. So collaborate when it makes sense and compete when it makes sense. But don't go into extremes. The end result should be whatever is good for the consumer and not whatever is good for the business owner. If something is good for the business owner but it hurts the consumer, it should be prohibited.

 

Business is good. Hurting the consumers is bad. Free market is good, but abusing freedoms to hurt people, to swindle people, is bad. Freedom shouldn't imply freedom to hurt (health insurance companies).

 

Thank you for your time.

Edited April 25, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Guest paul walter]

 

paul walter - GIH has called me a stupid thick head asshole puffing up your chest who don't know what the fuck you are talking about...& also threatened the use of brute force...yet I haven't called him any names (other than using his own words against him to make a point). But, somehow I am the dick here?

 

And how does capitalism ruin your life? And do you really think you'd fare better under Communism? Where a small band of ruthless thugs like Mao or Stalin micromanages your life? Where instead of letting the free market & due process decide the value of things - everything is instead based upon the whims, personal opinions & private agendas of an opaque, power-tripping cabal (regardless of any actual facts, common sense or logic)? And you, the "uplifted proletariat," have absolutely no say - in your own life?

 

I rest my "dick" case! At least you agree unknowingly about the 'free' market deciding the worth of human beings and the rest of existence. Your explication of Mao/Stalinism sounds a lot like modern capitalism...

 

I'm not sure how capitalism has ruined my life-let me count the ways...perhaps it was the hospital birth, the lack of folic acid in my mothers supermarket diet, the school system, the competition in all area at school, the GM food, the de-natured soil, the water, the health-care, the under-class hell, the alienation, the destruction of community, the roads that form the arteries of capital and that are open and bleeding lives/health and alienation, the sense of failure/lack of self-esteem from living in a meritocracy/class system, being judged for bad fashion/not looking like a mannequin, being shunned for not having enough money/class, semiotics not right for any number of things deemed 'normal' (middle class), for 'educating' myself as if life mattered and going too far (beyond the acceptable standards and use value),for finding out too much, for breathing the air, for being surrounded by self-defeating/self-defeated success stories, for the 6 o'clock news, for the entertainment to help me forget all this, for the choices I face every day excepting my own, for the electoral system, for the dead cyclist killed outside my house last week by a truck that just had to get through the lights that little bit quicker to deliver some more plastic, for 'my' choices, for 'my' world, for the Vietnamese forests and people, for the kids who glued my toxic shoes, for the aboriginals who sniff glue instead of the scent of emu, for the orangutans who take leave of their lives in order for me to have palm oil in my stock-cubes, to the East Timorese genocide and that lucrative oil/gas deal, to everything having no value because the market has replaced biology/natural systems, for the scum rising to the top, for the lies that keep it all going, for funeral parlours......

 

 

 

 

I could go on, but no doubt it would come down to differences of opinion, differences of philosophy. By the way I don't support commie shit either, I'm an extremist, there is no hope of reforming me. Paul.

[RongzomFan]

Interesting responses everyone!

Edited April 25, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Nah that's bullshit. Real (pure) communism is stateless. I will repeat for the 50th time. Real communism/socialism never existed. Stop comparing it to failed fascist experiments.

 

 

Defending the ideology is just as bad as defending Hitler's ideas.

 

In my opinion only, the main problem with communism, is freedom and liberty come from the state. Contrast this with the American Declaration of Independence, where liberty comes from God.

[sabretooth]

It's interesting that the monk's thought that his holiness could use magical power's to repell the chink's,but could'nt.

If he was really all that,then that is exactly what he would have done.

What is the point of spending all your life meditating.

 

 

 

sabretooth.

[RongzomFan]

If America is so bad, how come all the immigrants come here?

 

How come they tell their extended family to get their asses to America ASAP?

Edited April 25, 2010 by alwayson

[markern]

If America is so bad, how come all the immigrants come here?

 

How come they tell their extended family to get their asses to America ASAP?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously if you come from living on the border of starvation a lot of places seem better than at home. Also, Europe is flooded with immigrants. Anyway, no one is saying america is THAT BAD. We are just saying there are real alternatives other than communism and that some of those might be better. Being better does not have to mean the difference between night and day but an improvement.

[Sunya]

Defending the ideology is just as bad as defending Hitler's ideas.

 

Have you ever actually read Marx and Engels? You seem to know nothing about communism; you just have a knee-jerk reaction to the word from being brainwashed. Hell I was born in USSR and lived in the US since I was 6. My whole family lived in the Soviet Union most of their lives and even they aren't as brainwashed as you.

 

In my opinion only, the main problem with communism, is freedom and liberty come from the state. Contrast this with the American Declaration of Independence, where liberty comes from God.

 

Real communism the freedom and liberty is in the individual because there is no state.

 

Your definition of communism is false, it sounds more like the US. Your freedom comes from the state/banks/corporations. What is this God business? God left the arena a long time ago. Today we're all just a pawns for corporations to make more money. The lucky few can make it and join the 5% that are rich and lack debt. The majority are stuck in slavery and servitude to corporations and banks. Wait till you grow up and see what the world is really like. You're gonna love it! Freedom!

Edited April 25, 2010 by mikaelz

[markern]

I rest my "dick" case! At least you agree unknowingly about the 'free' market deciding the worth of human beings and the rest of existence. Your explication of Mao/Stalinism sounds a lot like modern capitalism...

 

I'm not sure how capitalism has ruined my life-let me count the ways...perhaps it was the hospital birth, the lack of folic acid in my mothers supermarket diet, the school system, the competition in all area at school, the GM food, the de-natured soil, the water, the health-care, the under-class hell, the alienation, the destruction of community, the roads that form the arteries of capital and that are open and bleeding lives/health and alienation, the sense of failure/lack of self-esteem from living in a meritocracy/class system, being judged for bad fashion/not looking like a mannequin, being shunned for not having enough money/class, semiotics not right for any number of things deemed 'normal' (middle class), for 'educating' myself as if life mattered and going too far (beyond the acceptable standards and use value),for finding out too much, for breathing the air, for being surrounded by self-defeating/self-defeated success stories, for the 6 o'clock news, for the entertainment to help me forget all this, for the choices I face every day excepting my own, for the electoral system, for the dead cyclist killed outside my house last week by a truck that just had to get through the lights that little bit quicker to deliver some more plastic, for 'my' choices, for 'my' world, for the Vietnamese forests and people, for the kids who glued my toxic shoes, for the aboriginals who sniff glue instead of the scent of emu, for the orangutans who take leave of their lives in order for me to have palm oil in my stock-cubes, to the East Timorese genocide and that lucrative oil/gas deal, to everything having no value because the market has replaced biology/natural systems, for the scum rising to the top, for the lies that keep it all going, for funeral parlours......

 

 

 

 

I could go on, but no doubt it would come down to differences of opinion, differences of philosophy. By the way I don't support commie shit either, I'm an extremist, there is no hope of reforming me. Paul.

 

Nice post:)

[RongzomFan]

If America is so bad, how come all the immigrants come here?

 

How come they tell their extended family to get their asses to America ASAP?

 

 

only one reply to this?

 

How come all the Ivy League schools (even Harvard) are shockingly filled with Asians?

Edited April 25, 2010 by alwayson

[markern]

only one reply to this?

 

What more answers do you need? If you do then argue specifically why my response was wrong/insufficient.

 

I might add that under apartheid many black africans from countries neighboring South Africa immigrated to South Africa (illegally for the most part I presume). THis was used as an argument by the white supremacists that South Africa was good for the blacks and that obviously most had to be happy with the state of affairs. Can you see were the fault in this argument was?

[RongzomFan]

Your freedom comes from the state/banks/corporations.

 

 

1. Who do you think runs China? The people?

 

2. Why don't you invest in ETF's like VB, VO, VTI, BKF?

Lets just say you can do VERY well. The markets are very robust.

 

The corporations are are not our enemies.

 

In fact the capital gains taxes on stocks are skewed very favorably to lower income brackets. You pay NO capital gains taxes in some cases.

Edited April 25, 2010 by alwayson

[markern]

only one reply to this?

 

How come all the Ivy League schools (even Harvard) are shockingly filled with Asians?

 

Soviet engineering schools were of far greater quality than the engineering schools in several Western European countries at the time. Did that make the Soviet Union a good place or much good at all?

[markern]

1. Who do you think runs China? The people?

 

2. Why don't you invest in ETF's like VB, VO, VTI, BKF?

Lets just say you can do VERY well. After you do so, you will 180 your position.

 

Well China is now a capitalist country. A capitalist country with many types of state intervention but a capitalist country none the less.

 

You seem to have the mistaken belief that capitalism equals freedom. Chile, Taiwan, Singapore and Spain are all countries that in the past were capitalist but also dictatorships. They were all much more capitalist than Sweeden for example but much less democratic. In general, most of the bad guy dictators the west supported during the cold war were running capitalist dictatorships. I don`t find these much better than the communist dictatorships the Soviets supported during the cold war. Capitalist dictatorships were and still are abundant.

 

Now as I have said I don`t think the US is THAT BAD or especially bad at all. I just think a model with a moderate increase in income redistribution and a higher level of state welfare services such as government paid health care is a good and humane idea. I am going to link in some interesting rankings about the US here and I do that only to counter the myths many americans and people in this thread seem to have about their level of freedom and democracy, about the connection between capitalism, democracy and freedom, and about what the situation actually is in the rest of the world. American citizens are, with some very impressive exceptions, unusually uninformed about what the state of affairs is outside their own borders. When I am in the US I find it hard to find any news about foreign countries except for perhaps THE most important international story. Average newspapers hardly have any international news at all. In Europe they actually do. This is the wrong kind of navel gazing. Now read this and get some bloody perspective:

 

THe Economist, a well respected magazine that strongly believes in capitalism with the least amount of state intervention, does rankings of which countries are the most democratic. The US comes in 18th!!!! place. COuntries with large welfare states, something which the editors of the Economists DO NOT like, such as the scandinavian countries, all score much better than the US. The Economist bases its ratings on: civil liberties, conduct of elections, media freedom, participation, public opinion, functioning government, corruption, and stability So much for the link between level of a free market and democracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Ranking_of_2008

 

Reporters without borders annually rate countries according to their level of press freedom. Here the US comes in as number twenty. Again beaten by the evil socialist states of Scandinavia which come out as the freest. Funnily Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are also rated as having larger press freedom then the US.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index

 

THe Economist also rates countries based on how economically free they are. Even here the US comes in behind Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I am including this as you also seem to be under the illusion that the US has the highest level of economic freedom.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

Edited April 25, 2010 by markern

[gendao]

What more answers do you need? If you do then argue specifically why my response was wrong/insufficient.

 

I might add that under apartheid many black africans from countries neighboring South Africa immigrated to South Africa (illegally for the most part I presume). THis was used as an argument by the white supremacists that South Africa was good for the blacks and that obviously most had to be happy with the state of affairs. Can you see were the fault in this argument was?

No, what was the fault? Wealth is all relative. South Africa under apartheid was simply still a better place to live for Africans...than

.

Living in a comfortable, capitalist ivory tower - you have the bourgeois luxury of idly comparing nonexistent idealism with reality. Down in the trenches of the real world, true proletarians don't. They can only compare one realistic alternative to another and choose whatever works best for them in the overall picture. Remember, politics is often about choosing the lesser of evils...or picking the best option that actually exists vs the idealistic one that doesn't.

 

For example, "sweatshops" are bad compared to American conditions, yet could still be an improvement over local conditions abroad.

Perhaps the best way to gauge if Third World workers think they are being exploited by Western employers is to ask them. In 2003, the Pew Center for People and the Press did just that, surveying 38,000 people in 44 nations touching every region on Earth.

 

When asked their views on multinational corporations, in nine out of the 10 African countries surveyed, at least 70 percent of respondents answered “good” or “very good.” The tenth, Angola, stood at 69 percent. In six of the eight Latin American countries surveyed, at least 60 percent of respondents answered “good” or “very good.” In six of the eight Asian countries surveyed, a majority of respondents held favorable views of multinationals. In Eastern Europe, only Poland and Russia had majority-negative views of multinationals.

 

University of Michigan professor Linda Lim, for example, visited Nike factories in Vietnam and Indonesia in 2000 and found that workers there earned on average five times each country’s respective minimum wage. University of Minnesota professor Paul Glewwe reports that per-capita consumption among Vietnam workers in foreign-owned companies is twice the national average. Edwin M. Graham of the Institute for International Economics found that the affiliates of U.S. multinational corporations pay on average twice the local wage in the developing world.

 

For laborers in the developing world, what we call sweatshop jobs may actually be the best of a series of bad employment options available to them, and/or the only or best option for supporting themselves and lifting their families out of poverty. Even minimal wages can dramatically improve the way people live. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof writes that just a couple of dollars in some countries can buy netting to thwart mosquitoes. For a Third World mother worried about her children catching malaria, such a small amenity can have an enormous impact on her quality of life.

These are all the actual realities out there, behind the propaganda headlines folks.

 

Why do you think China has become capitalist now? And look at the immediate results its had in pulling them out of nationwide poverty.. Get with the program, people!

 

Look, I'm sure 80 years ago...your types would have rabidly lynch-mobbed me as a "class enemy" and supported guys like Stalin & Mao into power. And then after they colossally f'd up these countries (140 million bodycount), fled to ones like the US built upon the principles that you had previously railed against.

 

Sorry, but there's just something really hypocritical about a bunch of Communist ex-pats promoting Communism & railing against capitalism...from their comfy homes in the capitalist country that they all fled to. If you TRULY believed in your convictions, you would have immigrated somewhere else. Actions speak louder than words, my friends.

Edited April 25, 2010 by vortex

[Taomeow]

It's interesting that the monk's thought that his holiness could use magical power's to repell the chink's,but could'nt.

If he was really all that,then that is exactly what he would have done.

What is the point of spending all your life meditating.

 

sabretooth.

 

----Moderator's Warning:----

"chinks" is a racial slur that can't be tolerated here. This post was reported by a rightfully offended ethnic Chinese, but I am equally offended by the term as a human being. Please repent and refrain.

 

----Moderator's sword sheathed

[JustARandomPanda]

For example, I think Ron Paul is correct in noticing the problems with fiat money and fractional reserve banking. Ron Paul offers a gold-standard as a solution. I strongly disagree with Ron Paul's solution. I strongly agree with Ron Paul's diagnosis of the problem though.

 

Interesting someone else also thinks the gold standard has problems. I posted about this tonight in the Off-Topic forum.

 

As for discussions on communism, marxism, the economy, capitalism, etc. I would recommend to anyone David Harvey's book The Limits to Capital. An absolutely mind-boggling stunning work. Read the reviews on Amazon. I bought the book, have begun to read it and can't begin to praise it highly enough.

 

[S-Curve]

1. Who do you think runs China? The people?

 

2. Why don't you invest in ETF's like VB, VO, VTI, BKF?

Lets just say you can do VERY well. The markets are very robust.

 

The corporations are are not our enemies.

 

In fact the capital gains taxes on stocks are skewed very favorably to lower income brackets. You pay NO capital gains taxes in some cases.

 

 

Dude, you are straight up out of your mind!

 

Are you 15 year's old?

 

Capitalism and communism are economic ideas. They have nothing to do with liberty or the lack of it.

 

Every G12 nation experiences immigration, including the United States. And there's a good reason for that. First World countries offer a much higher standard of living than do Third World countries.

 

In response to your question, "who run's China", well, who do you think runs the United States? Its not the people, my friend.

 

It sounds like you have a lot of learning and growing up to do. On a serious note, I highly recommend foreign travel to you, as you seem to have a very limited perspective. Don't be so narrow minded! You will have a much easier time making friends and enjoying life if you open up a little bit!

 

Good luck

[goldisheavy]

If America is so bad, how come all the immigrants come here?

 

America is a complex phenomenon. People like America because it's the most accepting place on Earth. I think Americans are less racist/xenophobic/exclusivist than Europeans. At the same time Americans are also more cut throat, more likely to swindle you, and so on. So Europe has nice social system going, but Europeans don't like to include too many outsiders into their system. They are exclusivists. Americans are like, "You can come here, I don't mind, but you best don't mind me if I kick your arse or steal your kidney." So it's kind of a bittersweet welcome.

 

We would have preferred to go to Canada because it has a vastly superior health care. But guess what? Canada doesn't accept older people and it has other restrictions, like education level and so on. See the point yet?

 

So Americans will let you in, like they let Mexicans in, but then they'll treat you like shit, like Mexicans are treated like shit. I'm talking about the system. On an individual level people can treat you pretty well, but you see Mexicans struggle all over the place. So it's a strange paradox. Republicans won't vote for any bill that punishes employers for hiring undocumented Mexicans. At the same time, they scream about the border issue. HYPOCRISY MUCH???? Basically Republicans and conservatives like to get $2 dollar an hour illegal labor, and refuse to stop that practice, but at the same time, they don't want "Mexicans stealing our jobs." Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick one. Either you don't let them in, but then punish businessmen who employ them. Or you let them in and treat them like damn human beings, with some dignity and basic respect. Make up your mind.

 

How come they tell their extended family to get their asses to America ASAP?

 

Easier to survive if you have a bunch of people helping each other. The simplest thing you can think of is that it's easier to split rent with your relatives than it is with strangers. Etc. It's not necessarily because America is so great. It's because Mexico is worse. People run from a bad place to a better place. That doesn't mean the better place is truly excellent. It's just better, sometimes only marginally better, where they come from.

 

A lot of people trade relatively less ethnic discrimination for more poverty. It's a devil's choice in some cases. It depends on each individual immigrant because they don't all necessarily have identical motivations.

 

America is not a bad place. I like America, but can you please take off the rose-tinted glasses? Wake up and smell reality please. The best thing about America, in my opinion, is freedom of speech. Too bad that freedom is being eroded when corps censor shows like South Park for making poignant social satire.

Edited April 26, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Sunya]

Well China is now a capitalist country. A capitalist country with many types of state intervention but a capitalist country none the less.

 

You seem to have the mistaken belief that capitalism equals freedom. Chile, Taiwan, Singapore and Spain are all countries that in the past were capitalist but also dictatorships. They were all much more capitalist than Sweeden for example but much less democratic. In general, most of the bad guy dictators the west supported during the cold war were running capitalist dictatorships. I don`t find these much better than the communist dictatorships the Soviets supported during the cold war. Capitalist dictatorships were and still are abundant.

 

Now as I have said I don`t think the US is THAT BAD or especially bad at all. I just think a model with a moderate increase in income redistribution and a higher level of state welfare services such as government paid health care is a good and humane idea. I am going to link in some interesting rankings about the US here and I do that only to counter the myths many americans and people in this thread seem to have about their level of freedom and democracy, about the connection between capitalism, democracy and freedom, and about what the situation actually is in the rest of the world. American citizens are, with some very impressive exceptions, unusually uninformed about what the state of affairs is outside their own borders. When I am in the US I find it hard to find any news about foreign countries except for perhaps THE most important international story. Average newspapers hardly have any international news at all. In Europe they actually do. This is the wrong kind of navel gazing. Now read this and get some bloody perspective:

 

THe Economist, a well respected magazine that strongly believes in capitalism with the least amount of state intervention, does rankings of which countries are the most democratic. The US comes in 18th!!!! place. COuntries with large welfare states, something which the editors of the Economists DO NOT like, such as the scandinavian countries, all score much better than the US. The Economist bases its ratings on: civil liberties, conduct of elections, media freedom, participation, public opinion, functioning government, corruption, and stability So much for the link between level of a free market and democracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Ranking_of_2008

 

Reporters without borders annually rate countries according to their level of press freedom. Here the US comes in as number twenty. Again beaten by the evil socialist states of Scandinavia which come out as the freest. Funnily Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are also rated as having larger press freedom then the US.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index

 

THe Economist also rates countries based on how economically free they are. Even here the US comes in behind Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I am including this as you also seem to be under the illusion that the US has the highest level of economic freedom.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

 

Some very good and powerful points, mark.

 

So Americans will let you in, like they let Mexicans in, but then they'll treat you like shit, like Mexicans are treated like shit. I'm talking about the system. On an individual level people can treat you pretty well, but you see Mexicans struggle all over the place. So it's a strange paradox. Republicans won't vote for any bill that punishes employers for hiring undocumented Mexicans. At the same time, they scream about the border issue. HYPOCRISY MUCH???? Basically Republicans and conservatives like to get $2 dollar an hour illegal labor, and refuse to stop that practice, but at the same time, they don't want "Mexicans stealing our jobs." Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick one. Either you don't let them in, but then punish businessmen who employ them. Or you let them in and treat them like damn human beings, with some dignity and basic respect. Make up your mind.

 

 

Easier to survive if you have a bunch of people helping each other. The simplest thing you can think of is that it's easier to split rent with your relatives than it is with strangers. Etc. It's not necessarily because America is so great. It's because Mexico is worse. People run from a bad place to a better place. That doesn't mean the better place is truly excellent. It's just better, sometimes only marginally better, where they come from.

 

Good point. Considering Mexico barely even has a government anymore, and that government only controls Mexico City where the rest of the country is run by drug cartels, it's basically anarchy down there. No wonder all the Mexicans come here. Doesn't mean that this place is heaven. It's all relative.

Edited April 26, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Considering Mexico barely even has a government anymore, and that government only controls Mexico City where the rest of the country is run by drug cartels, it's basically anarchy down there. No wonder all the Mexicans come here. Doesn't mean that this place is heaven. It's all relative.

 

I'm pretty sure that Mexicans were coming here long before the Mexican government lost its influence in Mexico. So even when Mexico was a relatively peaceful place, people still wanted to come to USA.

 

But yea, they are just trying to survive. Sometimes your choice is more ethnic discrimination but also more income. Sometimes the choice is less ethnic discrimination and less income. Sometimes, if you really live in a bad place, you could find both less discrimination and more income in USA compared to where you come from. Each situation is unique.

 

Overall I think USA is pretty good, and there are a lot of things Americans can be truly proud of, but is it flawless?

 

I don't like that if you dare point out a flaw in our current economic system, the immediate assumption is that you're a pinko Commie thief out to steal people's stuff. I really don't like that. It makes it impossible to have a good and honest discussion.