Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[slayda]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Ralph? Have you heard of TomTom? "startups" are not a US-only phenomenon, nor is the "open system" a necessary part.


Right. "Be grateful for what you have, and whatever you do don't challenge the status quo." People who have enough money not to have to worry about surviving from day to day should know better than to use that time in whatever way they want. In fact, they should spend it worrying that they'll lose it. So your argument against decreasing inequality is "fear the masses".

David Ricardo believed that, only (luckily for us) he was wrong/shortsighted, because when the rabble got enough money to spend to be able to buy other goods other people were producing everyone profited, because the market expanded immeasurably. "Defend what little you have, and for heaven's sake, don't think about the future, or the welfare of other people" indeed.

Anyway, nice try dodging having to reply to my response to your statement that "socialism" is ruling the USA now.

Wasn't intended as a dodge. Being an engineer, I am not properly trained in the nuances of political science. So I only stated my engineer's opinion of business socialism. Sorry if you wanted a more politically correct definition.

Also I was not fearing the masses. I was pointing out that, IMO, most people who want to share the wealth are looking at those with more than they have rather than at those with less.

As to inequality, the only place I know where "all men are created equal" is in the US Constitution. Again I am looking at this as an engineer where is a=b & b=c then a=c. If I'm five feet tall and you're six feet tall, we are not equal. If I'm a man and you're a woman, we're not equal. Since I don't have any Olympic Gold Medals, we're not all equal. I could go on & on but perhaps you see my point. You might think I'm being ridiculous but to me as an engineer, the term equal has a very specific and definite meaning. Personally I don't want equality by my definition because the world would be very monotonous & we'd have to come up with another method of procreation.

Now if you mean equal under the law, that is somewhat different and we all are - rich & poor, at least in the US (not so in some countries). And yes the rich may be able to hire better (or at least more expensive - which is not the same) lawyers, doctors, etc. However equality is not only for benefits but is also for responsibilities. IMO, rich & poor are responsible for themselves once they are grown. I'm willing to help someone else but am not willing to do everything for them when they refuse to do for themselves.

We all make choices. I'm responsible for the consequences of my choices (whether good or bad) just as you are. But please don't ask me to bear the burden for the bad consequences of your choices when you keep the good consequences for yourself. One of my choices is that I choose to live in the US. As a consequence of that choice and my age, I served in the US armed Forces during the Vietnam era. Others chose to (temporarily) abandon the US but then wanted to come back later when the "bad consequences" were over.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not against benefits for others, I just think there should also be equality for the bad things in life too. For me, equality means we all start at the same starting line at the same time. If I run faster than you do, I have a better chance of winning. Some people think equality is that everyone should have an equal chance to get to the finish line at the same time. For me that is definitely inequality.

Again, just one man's opinion.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by tirsales

And I didnt want to compare wodin (or anyone else) to McCarthy or accuse him (or anyone else) of doing said stuff. Believe me - as a German I know what it means to be compared or judged (with regard) to historical persons.
[BIG SNIP]

Sure. Once you explained how you meant it, it seemed clear to me that you had no intention of making the other part of the comparison. Problem is, the thing you were intending to point at just isn't what an American would think of first when someone says "like McCarthy!" We think of things like the abuses I listed -- which makes comparing someone to McCarthy come across as a really strong condemnation!

Xenophon

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

We think of things like the abuses I listed -- which makes comparing someone to McCarthy come across as a really strong condemnation!

And I apologize for this possible misunderstanding. But - now knowing this, I can understand the US-usage of this term (edit: I mean socialism) even less.

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by tirsales

And I apologize for this possible misunderstanding. But - now knowing this, I can understand the US-usage of this term even less.

Just trust me, little hedgehog, when I tell you that acc/using someone in the US of McCarthyism is worse than comparing them to satan. Which is ironice, because McCarthy is infamous for his Cold War withchunt for commies. I'm gonna go lie down because the pain meds have made my hands not type right.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Actually I am under the impression that "Sozialist" is some kind of "rude term" in the United States - something that must be avoided at all cost. This is interesting. Politically some people seem to use it to cut off discussions or bluntly shoot a political or social proposal down.
Why is there such a great angst of "Socialism"?

[Strap in armor...Once more into the breach.]

I'll discuss this because it's actually relevant to the thread.

Americans prize freedom over everything. This is the bedrock fundamental of the American culture. This isn't a negotitation point with Americans, it's a "get out your guns and shoot back" point. It's the underlying reason why so many Americans have guns. At least this is true of a large swath of Americans.

Now Socialism, by definition has state ownership and control of the means of production. This means that in order to eat and otherwise survive you must follow the edict of said government. Any freedom under such a system is purely arbitrary and subject to dismissal at any time by said government. The government has monopoly of not just of violence, but everything else pertaining to life (food, water, shelter).

Now consider, a culture who's most bedrock premise is freedom will not tolerate grant the level of government control described by Socialism. It won't even come close without massive kicking and screaming. And the underlying concepts become a perjorative culturally. What else would you expect with the US cultural premises?

Now there are areas and groups that are more Socialist minded that the American norm. They have to mask their preferences to avoid the ire of the "less enlightened" neighbors. Said neighbor aren't so much upset that the people are more socialist minded, but that they might want to apply those ideals to them. Their attitude is "if you want socialism, go some place where is already in force." We don't limit emigration (immigration is a different matter). But, unfortuately, they tend to be proslytizers and are busy trying to force their view on those who don't want it. So anything ever hinting of increased government control is dubbed Socialism, as an attempt to stop both the conversation and the efforts as well.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I snipped away most of your response, because I wanted to address only the quoted bit.

I would argue that preferring corporate interests over private interests is certainly a disease that America has suffered from to various degrees at various times.

Actually, I wasn't just talking about bailouts (although tariffs, the protection of the steel and auto industries etc. readily come to mind, with protectionism happening there as late as 2002 or so that I've read about, and are hardly dissimilar), I'm also talking about the level of private/consumer legal protection against corporate interests. A particularly disturbing thing that comes to mind here is the reselling of credit card transaction histories to other corporations (such as those doing the datamining for Rove's microtargeting operation for the 2004 election), and other types of abuse of private information. The fact that that is legal is simply inconceivable to me (never mind the voter manipulation issues), and other along with me. (and similar examples that I cannot readily remember atm) Or how, at times, it seems that FDA members seem to have rather startling conflicts of interest, but still are allowed on the committee. (Which suggests that lobbies or nepotism overrule consumer protection concerns, and which affects us as well, because of the importance of the FDA for releasing any new medication into the wild.)

But then, I'm the radical sort who believes that 90% or more of what the US Federal Government does is strictly unconstitutional -- including many things that directly affect my pocketbook like funding research at my University. Specifically, I just don't buy the incredible stretching of the Commerce Clause of the constitution that the Supremes have used to justify Federal involvement in almost everything. I believe much more strongly in the enumerated powers listed in the constitution... which would make all our recent bail-outs strictly illegal!

So take that attitude into account when you read my posts!

Xenophon

Will do. I do hope you're not one of these silly people, though

[wodin]

Originally Posted by tirsales

And there I was believing that somebody ready my posts. Oh well, seems like McCarthy really is like Elvis (still alive). I was under the impression, that Obama might be "left wing", but so far not much of a socialist.

To quote Wikipedia:


For Germans: Socialism != Sozialismus.

I'm not sure what Sozialismus is, but Wikipedia's definition of Socialism works for me.

Originally Posted by From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism (the disappearance of class and therefore state) would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution after a long transitional stage from capitalism called the Dictatorship of the proletariat.[3][4][5]

The utopian socialists by later socialist thinkers, and include Robert Owen, who tried to found socialist factories and other structures within a capitalist society and Henri de Saint Simon, the first individual to coin the term "socialism" and the originator of technocracy and industrial planning. The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many contemporary socialists share this belief.[6][7] Early socialist thinkers tended to favor more authentic meritocracy, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach. There is disagreement over the extent that National Socialism is socialist; although Adolf Hitler's party program included socialist elements, the Nazis did not nationalize industry, but instead created a highly regulated economy with state-led economic planning.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and the revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not prices for the means of production).[8] Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies and tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

• President Obama espouses a national health care system = Socialist
  President Obama appears to be attempting to exert greater Government control (nationalize) over “bailed out” industries= Socialist
  President Obama appears to advocate redistribution of wealth= Socialist
  President Obama forced the resignation of the CEO of a major multinational company (GM)=Socialist

And by the way, left wing in the US leans towards socialism, and ultra left wing leans towards communism, which is really just a more extreme example of socialism.

[Xenophon]

@ZeroSpinBoson: "Will do. I do hope you're not one of these silly people, though"

Nope. Income tax, however little I like the way we do it, is clearly constitutional. 16th amendment and all that.

I'd be thrilled if we could outlaw payroll withholding, though. I suspect that many Americans would pay a lot more attention to government spending if they had to write a quarterly check to Uncle Sam for the full amount of their income tax liability for that quarter! They'd surely have a clearer view of how much they are paying. But that's a tactical idea, not a matter of principle.

Xenophon

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by wodin

I'm not sure what Sozialismus is, but Wikipedia's definition of Socialism works for me.

• Socialist
  Socialist
  Socialist
  Socialist

And by the way, left wing in the US leans towards socialism, and ultra left wing leans towards communism, which is really just a more extreme example of socialism.

Not to hijack RSE's point, but:

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So anything ever hinting of increased government control is dubbed Socialism, as an attempt to stop both the conversation and the efforts as well.

Why do you bother posting in this topic if you are not at all interested in adding anything constructive to the conversation, Wodin?

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by tirsales

There are many different kinds of "routine" surgery - e.g. transplanting an artificial hipjoint. It needs to be done, but (in most cases) its not important whether you wait some weeks.
There are even some operations at the heart (e.g. some kinds of vasodilatation) that are considered "can wait" (in fact: most (thats most, not all) surgical interventions can wait at least some days, if not weeks or months).

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

It's just that when I think "surgery" I think of 3 basic levels.

One being urgent and needed immediately as a result of some sort of trauma, whether from accident or injury, or stroke, heart attact or such.

The second being things like broken bones needing metal rods, gall bladder removal, things that may not kill you if not attended to today, but are nonetheless serious conditions, quite painful, and should be attended to promptly to avoid a more serious condition or circumstance.

And thirdly, elective surgery which of course encompasses everything from breast implants to face lilfts.

The third category is the only one I wouldn't mind waiting 18 weeks for.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Americans prize freedom over everything. This is the bedrock fundamental of the American culture.

And this is actually not really a difference to Europe (just stating).
Actually (wrt both continents) its relatively strange, that freedom on the one hand is valued so high, but OTOH can be neglected so easily (see "new" anti-terror laws in the US or Europe).

Now Socialism, by definition has state ownership and control of the means of production.

Thats actually not totally true - the society has control of the means of production. I do know that this is (in most cases) a purely theoretically difference, still - for the sake of clarity - its a difference.
Please do not misunderstand me - I am NOT a socialist (I am also not a capitalist, but thats not the point) and I do NOT want to defend socialism (or - worse - the socialist states history provided).

Now consider, a culture who's most bedrock premise is freedom will not tolerate grant the level of government control described by Socialism. It won't even come close without massive kicking and screaming.

Provided your above definition of Socialism - I can fully understand your point here. Still: This does not explain why the term socialism is used the way it is used (well ... In Germany Hitler and Nazism are "the evil itself" (for a variety of good reasons). Comparisons to Hitler are sometimes used to debase s/o or s/t (e.g. new laws regarding a control of immigration are often called fascistic or sentences like "Germany, with its history of Nazism, should be more sensible in matters of ..." used). But: The usage is neither as widely spread nor as "discussion ending" (hey, you can always state why your not like Hitler...)

So anything ever hinting of increased government control is dubbed Socialism, as an attempt to stop both the conversation and the efforts as well.

Yes, and thats the point I fail to understand. Oh well, cultural differences. I dont have to understand them! (I do not understand quite a lot of the culture of France, and they are a hell of a lot nearer).

[Xenophon]

@tirsales: you wrote "Actually (wrt both continents) its relatively strange, that freedom on the one hand is valued so high, but OTOH can be neglected so easily (see "new" anti-terror laws in the US or Europe). "

Don't get me started on the subject of the anti-terror laws in the US. Before I start foaming at the mouth, I'll simply note that they're as bad as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

Xenophon
<who is now heading off to rant, rave and foam at the mouth , but will spare you all the awful sight.>

[slayda]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

@ZeroSpinBoson: "Will do. I do hope you're not one of these silly people, though"

Nope. Income tax, however little I like the way we do it, is clearly constitutional. 16th amendment and all that.

I'd be thrilled if we could outlaw payroll withholding, though. I suspect that many Americans would pay a lot more attention to government spending if they had to write a quarterly check to Uncle Sam for the full amount of their income tax liability for that quarter! They'd surely have a clearer view of how much they are paying. But that's a tactical idea, not a matter of principle.

Xenophon

I've been told that this amendment was never properly (legally??) ratified by the states. Don't know whether that's true or not.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Americans prize freedom over everything. This is the bedrock fundamental of the American culture. This isn't a negotitation point with Americans, it's a "get out your guns and shoot back" point. It's the underlying reason why so many Americans have guns. At least this is true of a large swath of Americans.

I am an American and I strongly disagree with this characterization. I can thing of several virtues that I place above "freedom," justice being one of them. But I suspect RSE and I would disagree on definitions of both freedom and justice.

A distinction I have noticed between American and European culture, related to the outlier/bell curve emphasis, is that I think Europeans are more inclined to trust the results of scientific research as a tool for long-term planning, even if its results are personally inconvenient to them, whereas many Americans are inclined to disregard scientific research for planning purposes, assuming that any problems can be dealt with by cleverness if they get big enough (i.e. they start to impact the American in question's standard of living).

[slayda]

On the discussion of socialism, two things bother me - the term "fair" and the term "State".

Who or what is the State? When you get down to the final analysis, isn't there some person or persons that really make the decision? If so, are those persons just "more equal" or have special status?

What is fair? Is fairness that each person gets some specified benefit and provides some specified contribution? Or is it like in the Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged - "From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs."? What seems fair to you may not seem fair to me, so who decides. According to the Wikipedia quote that Wodin posted, there seems to be some disagreement even among socialists.

I think different ideas of fairness is really the underlying cause of much of the disagreement on the thread.