A question to Americans : How do you think Europeans should change ?

An aherent to Marx after it gave us hundreds of millions dead and oppressed is calling me insane?!

Marx gave us a revolution in sociology, political science and economics. He was not responsible IN THE LEAST for Stalin, Castro, Tse-tung or any of the other so-called Marxist dictators. For they weren't Marxist. And yes, I bloody well am calling you insane.


Wow. So you do understand my argument. Funny how the only difference is I'm talking about the Americas and you're talking about Europe.

The difference is that Europe is already going that way, with the EU/EEC, its own sorta-Constitution in the Convention for Human Rights, anthem and flag. It increasingly wants to go that way, or there'd be no way on earth that I'd support it. I don't, however, see Mexico and Canada giving up their sovereignty without subjugation.

Who's the hypocrite?

I am henceforth withdrawing from this particular tangent on this thread. I refuse to debate any longer with this imperialist dolt (provided he doesn't act scurrilously towards my character, in which case I will step in again). God, even TripleB seems reasonable by comparison. Come back, TB, all is forgiven!

Well I am keeping to my guns: European country's are their own separate nations or United Europe as it may be, and what they decide to do is up to them, as it is really their
lives and land at stake.

The US also has a big stake politically and economically in Europe. You stand to lose more than gain from ending relations.

On the same note, however, Europeans have their obsession with hating America, with hating President Bush and loving Bill Clinton, all three of which should be played out to the US public for their own opinions to be made

Tell the American public the truth. Europe is not America-hating. Bush-hating, perhaps. Clinton-loving? A bit of an overstatement.

Just because some of us hate your President and some of his idiotic decisions does not make us anti-American. You have, TripleB, in your head, this thought that there's a huge tide of anti-Americanism sweeping through Europe. As a European in one of the countries most frequently accused of being anti-American, let me tell you that it's false. We eat up American culture on a daily basis, and most of us have a lot of respect for your nation.

- Scarlet.

 

TSB - funny you should ask, I'm finishing my essay "In what circumstances may a State invoke the right to use force under International Law?"

Chapter 7 United Nations Charter

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

You may want to check out Chapter 1, Artices 1 & 2, Esp. 2(4):

Article 2
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. .

Glad to help.

E_S

 

Glad to help.

Thanks a lot. I'm sure it'll help this thread a bit, and, if repeated, several of the other threads that deal with the UN.

Good luck with your essay!

- Scarlet.

 

Good luck with your essay!

Thanks. It's a bit -ish at times. 5,500 words thus far, 67 footnotes! Lots of uses of the word supra as well. It looks great, as all the great law journal essays use that word!

E_S

 

How should Europeans change?

First, the Brits should abolish their monarchy, write a Constitution(a real one), and embrace the common currency of the mainland. And get rid of the House of Lords and replace it with a Senate composed of appointed and elected pols.

Second, France has serious troubles with rascist, nationalistic politicians. They also have a troubling rise in spending that will be unsustainable in the not-so-distant- future if not contained.

Create a Continental Army with nations having their own armies as reserves for the continentals.


Scarlet: "I refuse to debate any longer with this imperialist dolt."

Imperialist?!

The whole left-right spectrum is history. At both ends, repressive authoritarianism.

In other words: Imperialism = Bad

Commies = Bad


Both lead to the same outcome. Repressive regimes.

What part of VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION do you not understand?

 

In other words: Imperialism = Bad

Commies = Bad

There's a difference betweeen generically bad (Imperialism) and a system which has been misused to create bad (communism).

Both lead to the same outcome. Repressive regimes.

What about the Paris Commune?

What part of VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION do you not understa

The part where you think that Canada and Mexico are going to enter into it with you.

- Scarlet.

 

I didn't read all that came before this, but I'd like to say as an "american" that I think that most European countries are doing nothing wrong, hence Why I'm moving to Amsterdam (love the policy on most things, such as how they get addicts help, instead of punnishing them) or England (love the fact it's illegal to own a gun; wish america would adopt that policy) when I'm old enough.

 

Europeans will just have to face the fact that people in the U.S. are becoming truly diverse and that will change our perspective of how we view the world.

I don't see what you mean by this? You mean to say that America is more diverse then anything in the world and thus holds some kind of moral authority?

Oh, I see you obviously think so lowly of the latino peoples of America that obviously they are incapable of entering into a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION with their other American brothers and sisters. It must be white-man oppression. What a joke.

I think the USA has opressed South/Middle America for long enough, I don't think that Mexico or any of those countries really want to be that associated with the USA. "Gringos go home" ring a bell?

As Americans, we all share the past history of European colonialism, exploitation, and oppression.

At what point in history where YOU oppressed? I'm guessing you're white and thus part of the oppressors, don't talk out of your arse here please. Oh yeah, America was so opressed by Brittain when it still was a colony.

OMG! EXTRA TAXES! THIS WILL NOT STAND! HOW DARE THEY OPPRESS US LIKE THAT! FIGHT FOR FREEDOM!

I'm not talking conquest. Don't be naieve. I'm referring to an evolutionary process of the American people coming closer together, not a takeover. [roll_eyes]

Not anytime soon boy. Where do you get those ideas?

 

GAP, when the additionnal taxes bring the total taxes to over 65% of the income, you can expect things to go awry The UK did deserve what they got with the American Declaration of Independance.

EDIT - a lot of good points everyone ; I'll take time to read them more thoroughly and reply to them while offline.

 

If I remember correctly they weren't paying that much compared to other places in the Empire. Compared to Spains colonies they had no right of complaining at all.

 

Objectively, they did have right to complain at all. Imagine that your government, aside from other taxes, got 65% of your income. You certainly wouldn't be happy, would you ?

 

My memory is kinda fuzzy about the whole thing but I do seem to remember that they payed less then most people. (including those who lived in Brittain itself) so no, no real right to be angry enough to start a war.

 

I think they were just pissed off because King George was telling them what to do without giving them any say-so in it, knocking on their doors at night and telling them they had no choice but to quarter forty smelly men in their houses for a week and feed them, arresting them for no reason and executing them with no trial--or arresting them for writing "King George is a big fat idiot" as a headline in the Boston Herald, or for not allowing them to own guns, meaning if they saw a perfectly good pheasant for Sunday dinner, they had to kill it with their bare hands and get blood all over their good shirts--and they didn't have Kenmore machines back then. Yeah, I think there were a lot of reasons they were pissed, taxes being a big part of it--or more specifically, taxation without representation. (Which makes me wonder--when is the District of Columbia going to start a revolution?)

 

Remember this: no taxation without representation. They never forfeited their rights as Englishmen. If George III and his cronies actually relented on the issue of taxation, then I think the Revolutionary War would never have happened.

 

Wow. The GAP has joined the debate. Welcome.

We discussed this a while back GAP how the Northwest and BC and Alberta are developing stronger ties. True, they have not made any announcements or moves to formalize thier relations seperate from Canada and the U.S. But Chretien(sp?) is NOT popular in BC or Alberta.

How many people near the border have dual citizenship? Thousands. The national borders are fading bud.

Both Canada and Mexico have moved to float their currencies like the U.S. Fed has promoted.

A floating currency allows the exchange rates between nations to stabilize irregardless of national policy. Hence another fading of the border.

I live in the Southwest U.S. I've met and talked to many people who live in areas across the border in Mexico(Juarez, Agua Prieta, and Nogales). They all have dual citizenship and work and live in both the U.S. and Mexico. They also vote. You don't think they would like to see more uniform application of laws between Northern Mexico and the Southwest US? Yep.

Ever heard of the UCC? The ICC? Look them up.



GAP: "I don't see what you mean by this? You mean to say that America is more diverse then anything in the world and thus holds some kind of moral authority?"

What?! You thought that from that?! I'm saying the U.S. is becoming more diverse and full of people from different ehtnic and social backgrounds, not just a bunch of WASPS running around with all the power. This will change the US politically, culturally,etc.


GAP: "I think the USA has opressed South/Middle America for long enough, I don't think that Mexico or any of those countries really want to be that associated with the USA. "Gringos go home" ring a bell?"

Yeah, that's why thousands work here in the US and flee their own country by the day. That's why thousands increasingly seek dual citizenship for thier children along the border. [roll_eyes]


GAP: "At what point in history where YOU oppressed? I'm guessing you're white and thus part of the oppressors, don't talk out of your arse here please. Oh yeah, America was so opressed by Brittain when it still was a colony."

This is prejudice and stereotypical. Lightweight too. How do you know who the hell I am?

GAP:"Not anytime soon boy. Where do you get those ideas?"

LOL. By watching, reading, and LISTENING. All of it.

Economically, North America is already moving closer together. The US is becoming more cosmopolitan than in the past. Less-waspy more worldly.
Many areas of the US are being transformed by immigrants and migrant workers. THEY'RE changing it.

 

"There's a difference betweeen generically bad (Imperialism) and a system which has been misused to create bad (communism)."

Well, actually communism as reality became highly imperialist once Lenin got hold of it. To his credit, Marx was raibidly anti-colonial but the SI conferences confirmed that he and Engels could not overcome the fervent nationalism of the late 1800's.

In hindsight, Marx was right about many of the shortcomings of liberalism and parliamentary institutions. But, he offered no concrete solutions beyond some vague "spontaneous order" that would arise once the proletariat seized control.

That's why Lenin unknowingly, and Stalin willfully, were able to transform Marx's ideas into what would become Leninism and Stalinism.

The Paris Commune? I have no problem with people voluntarily forming associations. Communes have flourished in Switzerland for a long time. Small communism does work.


But of course the Paris situation was different.


That was more of a socialist uprising initially not supported by Marx. He hated the French socialists, you know that.
True, the commune did manage to form a legislature. The problem was it was a seizure of property and power away from the middle-class.

It was doomed to failure.

 

To do list for America:
1. Metric system - The kids have been using it in school why not in real life?

To do list for Europe:
1. Lower taxes
2. Change to 110V AC 60hz
3. Change to NTSC

Europe is a great place to visit (some of the worlds best scenery and museums on that continent) but the high taxes, I think, limit your growth potential. I wouldn't mind converting to European power, but it seems like European TV is not as good, so while you convert to NTSC do your power as well

There are several places in Europe that I would like to retire (during the summer at least).

1. Bergen, Norway
2. Blackforest, Germany
3. Anywhere in the Swiss Alps

--Joey

 

"2. Change to 110V AC 60hz"

LOL!

It's the little things isn't it?

 

I also really love Europe--when I was in France, I really felt I could settle there permanently if I had had the resources to make the move.

However, I think it is true that high European taxes limit the countries' growth potential. The other side of this is that European governments offer more, and better, services than our government does, and are able to do so because of higher taxes.

Also, due to less restrictive laws in America, it is much easier to start a business here than it is in European countries. For this reason, among others, we have lower unemployment.

 

If I'm not mistaken, EU nations must limit their tax rates and total spending.

Unemployment and the other two(spending and taxes) are the issues France seems to be struggling with right now.

That and the open trade laws.

 

Well, actually communism as reality became highly imperialist once Lenin got hold of it.

And this discredits Communism...how? Because Lenin unintentionally inspired the oppression of the USSR under Stalin, does in no way condemn Communism, and definitely not Marxism, and Marx himself.

To his credit, Marx was raibidly anti-colonial but the SI conferences confirmed that he and Engels could not overcome the fervent nationalism of the late 1800's.

He didn't want to. He found it tiresome at first, but he acknowledged that this nationalism had inspired the Paris Commune.

Thiers had negotiated the Prussian Victory, and the Parisians didn't want to settle for it. So, when the National Guard waltzed cannons into the working class areas of the city, and the Parisian authorities tried to seize them back, the Revolution was sparked. The soldiers were told to fire on the National Guard refused, and the crowds near Montmartre overcame them. The Government was chased back to Versailles, and 'the insurgents gradually occupied the city, erecting barricades, surmounted by mitrailleuse guns, in all the principal thoroughfares.' So began the Paris Commune of 1871.

What annoyed Marx was the fact that the Communards didn't immediately charge on Versailles and remove the Government for proper - they, instead, decided to hold democratic elections for the Commune. Marx forgave this, when during its brief term in office the commune abated rents for the period of the siege and permitted a three year delay for payment of outstanding bills. It set up unemployment exchanges; abolished night work for bakers; permitted trade unions and workers co- operatives to take over factories not in use in order to start them up again. Day nurseries were established near factories and much was done to improve education in particular women's education which was the most neglected area.

So, when Thiers, the traitor, the bourgeoisie traitor, marched on the city on April 2, and massacred the Communards, forcibly ending the Commune, Marx was outraged. He wrote the Civil War in Paris, in which he glowed with praise for the Commune and the Communards.

In hindsight, Marx was right about many of the shortcomings of liberalism and parliamentary institutions.

Marx was right about almost everything he said, except the timing of the Revolution.

But, he offered no concrete solutions beyond some vague "spontaneous order" that would arise once the proletariat seized control.

This is owed partially to Marxism being created in opposition to Capitalism, rather than alternative theory, and because Marx died before he could properly attend to post-Revolution Communism. However, certain laws are prevalant through Marxism, and it's fairly easy to predict how he would have structured his thoughts on it. Lenin merely misinterpreted them somewhat; Trotsky did a lot to correct that, but Stalin bastardised and killed the idea of Marxism entirely.

The Paris Commune? I have no problem with people voluntarily forming associations. Communes have flourished in Switzerland for a long time. Small communism does work.

Ah, but the Paris Commune wasn't small. It wasn't the size of a full nation, perhaps, but that's irrelevant - the blueprint could have been moved onto a macro scale. The Paris Commune was the best, most healthy example of a large Commune, ever, barring the early Communistic societies from which we are all descended.

But of course the Paris situation was different.

Yeah. It worked.

That was more of a socialist uprising initially not supported by Marx. He hated the French socialists, you know that.

His main irritation was for Bakunin who had tried to wrest control of the International from him and Engels; it also irritated him that the Communards did not immediately march on Versailles. However, that has nothing to do with his opinion of the Commune itself.

True, the commune did manage to form a legislature. The problem was it was a seizure of property and power away from the midd

 

We discussed this a while back GAP how the Northwest and BC and Alberta are developing stronger ties. True, they have not made any announcements or moves to formalize thier relations seperate from Canada and the U.S. But Chretien(sp?) is NOT popular in BC or Alberta.

I doubt that Canada and the USA will become one anytime soon if that's what you're saying.

How many people near the border have dual citizenship? Thousands. The national borders are fading bud.

So? That's because they live near the borders and it makes it more convinient.. Not because the people in Canada decided that they'd also like to be Americans.

Both Canada and Mexico have moved to float their currencies like the U.S. Fed has promoted.

A floating currency allows the exchange rates between nations to stabilize irregardless of national policy. Hence another fading of the border.

So? France and Belgium are not the same country with the same governement even though they are both members of the European Union with a same coin.

I live in the Southwest U.S. I've met and talked to many people who live in areas across the border in Mexico(Juarez, Agua Prieta, and Nogales). They all have dual citizenship and work and live in both the U.S. and Mexico. They also vote. You don't think they would like to see more uniform application of laws between Northern Mexico and the Southwest US? Yep.

And you mean with this that?

What?! You thought that from that?! I'm saying the U.S. is becoming more diverse and full of people from different ehtnic and social backgrounds, not just a bunch of WASPS running around with all the power. This will change the US politically, culturally,etc.

Uhm, and you mean to say that this is soley so in the US?


Yeah, that's why thousands work here in the US and flee their own country by the day. That's why thousands increasingly seek dual citizenship for thier children along the border. [roll_eyes]

Not my point.

This is prejudice and stereotypical. Lightweight too. How do you know who the hell I am?

"I guess"

 

Me: "It was doomed to failure."

SB: "Incorrect.
On April 2, Thiers advanced on Paris from Versailles with his troops. They massacred the men, women and children of the Commune; those that weren't killed were tortured and falsley imprisoned."

And this was a success how? It was a massacre. Is that a success? I would not say so.

BTW, when I mentioned communism on the micor-scale working, I didn't mean the Marxist type. Obviously, the Swiss communes aren't interested in full-scale revolution any time soon.

The Paris Commune is an example of communism NOT working due to them being hell-bent on quasi-revolution. Whether you're right about its eventual success, we'll never know.

EDIT:

SB: "And this discredits Communism...how? Because Lenin unintentionally inspired the oppression of the USSR under Stalin, does in no way condemn Communism, and definitely not Marxism, and Marx himself."

You're right. As theory, Marx is not discredited. As practice however, the purest form may have been expressed in the Revolution of Cuba. Don't laugh. Think about it. In the beginning, Castro had little ties with Stalinism. Today of course, it's slightly different.

I'm interested however why you don't mention Marx's commitment to revolution not just in Capitalistic countries, but many that were not.

 

And this was a success how? It was a massacre. Is that a success? I would not say so.

It was a success because it wasn't "doomed to failure." It failed because the middle-classes massacred them, not because of a failure in the Commune. That's why it was a success.

The Paris Commune is an example of communism NOT working due to them being hell-bent on quasi-revolution.

This is incorrect and highly disrespectful of the people who were massacred in 1871. It had nothing to do with what their intentions were. There was no excuse for the massare. It had everything to do with the ruling classes refusing to give people their democracy. They claimed Paris. Democracy was instituted. People were free to come and go as they wished, and the majority of people in Paris supported it. The ruling class could not stomach this, and massacred them. Don't you dare blame the working-class for that.

Whether you're right about its eventual success, we'll never know.

Oh, we'll know eventually. Maybe not in my or your lifetimes, but we'll know.

- Scarlet.

 

Me: "To his credit, Marx was raibidly anti-colonial but the SI conferences confirmed that he and Engels could not overcome the fervent nationalism of the late 1800's."

SP: "He didn't want to. He found it tiresome at first, but he acknowledged that this nationalism had inspired the Paris Commune."

That is not entirely true SB, c'mon. When Marx and Engels tried to get the revolution to start in Germany, the Soc-Dems of that nation blocked it. When they tried the neighboring nations, the same. The Soc-Dems were not interested in jeopordizing thier own nations stability for the sake of the revolution. This was nationalism and made Marx furious.

He only supported the Paris Commune because it was perhaps his only chance of realizing the revolution at the time. But again, he hated the French socialists because of thier veiled love of Napolean III. National Imperialist.