European Socialism Needs War To Mask Failure

[dennislmay]

Socialists here and in Europe will not stand idle and take the blame for the impending financial collapse of the West.

European style socialism is their religion and efforts to protect the myths of that religion will lead them into world war. The war will serve several purposes - one primary purpose will be to mask the real reasons the Western economies collapsed while also providing an excuse to clamp down on what would otherwise be civil and political disorder following a government-incompetence-induced financial collapse.

No riots allowed because we are at war, rationing expected because we are at war, and economic failure not the fault of the administration but outside forces [the war].

Without a war as an excuse to implement authoritarian controls there might be sufficient political reaction to the financial collapse to bring about political and economic reforms - a move away from European Socialism. With war, European style socialism and authoritarian rule will be cemented in place. After authoritarian rule has been implemented for some time and war dies down the authoritarian rule will continue indefinitely because the post "hot war" threat of terrorism will never end.

History will be written by the authoritarian rulers and it will be made clear that freedom failing caused economic collapse and the war [not socialist interference in the markets] and only a strong hand can keep us safe now.

Dennis

[PDS]

Here is what it sounds like you are saying: (1) Europeans are fond of socialism, (2) war is not good, (3) leftists and/or others may take advantage of said wars, and (4) power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Aren't these also the lessons we learned during our high school history classes, at least when we weren't practicing duck and cover drills during the Cold War?

[caroljane]

Dennis, you are wrong. As a socialist I am perfectly willing to stand idle and take blame. It is a good survival strategy.

[dennislmay]

Here is what it sounds like you are saying: (1) Europeans are fond of socialism, (2) war is not good, (3) leftists and/or others may take advantage of said wars, and (4) power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Aren't these also the lessons we learned during our high school history classes, at least when we weren't practicing duck and cover drills during the Cold War?

The obvious isn't always obvious to everyone.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Dennis, you are wrong. As a socialist I am perfectly willing to stand idle and take blame. It is a good survival strategy.

Remember what Andrew Wilkow says: Socialism is for the people, not the socialists. Are you a socialist [ruler] or one who wants to live under socialism [one of the people]?

Fortunately for Canada - at the moment - in respect to finances and business it is less socialist than the United States. Canada is however a free rider in many respects on the United States - particularly the military.

Remember the lessons of both Russia and Germany - when socialists come to power the 2nd bunch of people up against the wall are the socialist puritans who fight the authoritarians who have come to power under socialism.

Dennis

[syrakusos]

Socialists here and in Europe will not stand idle and take the blame for the impending financial collapse of the West.... The war will ...

I do not see the actual Europe of real Europeans going to war. One of the many examples of the deep and abiding ignorance of the Guns-Gold-and-God gang is that "the coming collapse" is always around the corner, but never actually here. In that, they are like their reflections on the left, the Trotskyites who agitate and organize among workers, but who tell their Marxist comrades that "objective conditions" are not yet revolutionary. In both cases, the sense of urgency impels a lot of "action" mostly in the form of writing and talking. But, since the sky is not yet falling, no concrete events take place. No one actually does anything.

The economy has contracted - collapsed, perhaps, maybe not - but the Dot.Com Meltdown, the unending (socialist) war in Iraq and Afghanistan with its suspension of civil rights and civil liberties, the Mortgage Bubble, and now the coming car loan bubble, certainly should be "objective conditions" for any radical from either incidence of the political reflection.

Anyone who wants to get above and beyond this nonsense should read The Future and Its Enemies by Reason editor Virginia Postrel. Yes, the world has problems, always has, always will... religious wars, Monkey Trials, Red Scares, terrorism (invented by the government of France in 1793), oppression, suppression, and repression, stupid politicians and crooked politicians, corrupted medical doctors, and lying physicists,...

And yet, the world endures...

[caroljane]

Dennis, you are wrong. As a socialist I am perfectly willing to stand idle and take blame. It is a good survival strategy.

Remember what Andrew Wilkow says: Socialism is for the people, not the socialists. Are you a socialist [ruler] or one who wants to live under socialism [one of the people]?

Fortunately for Canada - at the moment - in respect to finances and business it is less socialist than the United States. Canada is however a free rider in many respects on the United States - particularly the military.

Remember the lessons of both Russia and Germany - when socialists come to power the 2nd bunch of people up against the wall are the socialist puritans who fight the authoritarians who have come to power under socialism.

Dennis

The socialism of Canada is not that of Russia or Germany, because we are not Russia or Germany and have indeed remembered their lessons.

[studiodekadent]

The socialism of Canada is not that of Russia or Germany, because we are not Russia or Germany and have indeed remembered their lessons.

I'm normally not one to take Carol's side, but lets please all try to be precise.

Today's European "Socialism" is Social Democracy, i.e. a managed-market economy ("managed-market" means a regulated market, neither are to be confused with a free market) with extensive redistribution of wealth, typically through bureaucratic management, combined with neo-Keynesian management of the financial markets through a central bank. The style of market management will often be tilted towards favoring certain kinds of parties/institutions over others (i.e. unions getting perks) for "social justice" concerns.

This is scarcely a free market but we should try to be careful to remember that this is NOT State Socialism, nor is it the same as Marxism-Leninism.

I don't like Social Democracy one bit but it isn't the same as Stalinism.

[dennislmay]

Dennis, you are wrong. As a socialist I am perfectly willing to stand idle and take blame. It is a good survival strategy.

Remember what Andrew Wilkow says: Socialism is for the people, not the socialists. Are you a socialist [ruler] or one who wants to live under socialism [one of the people]?

Fortunately for Canada - at the moment - in respect to finances and business it is less socialist than the United States. Canada is however a free rider in many respects on the United States - particularly the military.

Remember the lessons of both Russia and Germany - when socialists come to power the 2nd bunch of people up against the wall are the socialist puritans who fight the authoritarians who have come to power under socialism.

Dennis

The socialism of Canada is not that of Russia or Germany, because we are not Russia or Germany and have indeed remembered their lessons.

If you remembered their lessons you would not be a socialist. Every socialist believes this time it will be different. As studiodekadent noted neither the US nor Canada exist as free markets and neither lives totally under socialism. Many of the luxuries Western Europe and Canada have lived under since WWII are as partial free riders of US productivity and military spending. This luxury has extended the experiments in socialism well beyond their natural lifespan as the socialists have not yet run out of other peoples money [productivity]. As the US becomes more socialist there is no one left to rob and the luxury phase of socialism will begin to collapse leading to the real ugly face of authoritarian state socialism. The path depends on individual circumstances but the end is always the same since the financial underpinnings of socialism is a grand Ponzi Scheme and always doomed from the start.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

The socialism of Canada is not that of Russia or Germany, because we are not Russia or Germany and have indeed remembered their lessons.

I'm normally not one to take Carol's side, but lets please all try to be precise.

Today's European "Socialism" is Social Democracy, i.e. a managed-market economy ("managed-market" means a regulated market, neither are to be confused with a free market) with extensive redistribution of wealth, typically through bureaucratic management, combined with neo-Keynesian management of the financial markets through a central bank. The style of market management will often be tilted towards favoring certain kinds of parties/institutions over others (i.e. unions getting perks) for "social justice" concerns.

This is scarcely a free market but we should try to be careful to remember that this is NOT State Socialism, nor is it the same as Marxism-Leninism.

I don't like Social Democracy one bit but it isn't the same as Stalinism.

As the managed-market economy [Ponzi Scheme] grows it starts to run out of other people's money and signs of failure start to appear. Wise Ponzi Schemers then open up freedom [Canada and Germany] - injection of legitimate financial growth - to prevent the Ponzi Scheme from collapsing. So the free market is allowed to operate enough to keep the scheme from collapsing [like a thermostat opening and closing] but if the thermostat gets stuck for political reasons [Obama the true believer, Soviets, Nazi's, North Korea, Cuba, etc.] then the correction of excess does not happen and the scheme goes into authoritarianism to maintain the power even as the finances of the scheme itself has collapsed.

Like the mob stealing from a business the managed-market economy can endure to a point as long as the mobster's son - a true believer - doesn't take over and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs. The question then becomes why allow the mobster in to begin with?

Dennis

[studiodekadent]

As the managed-market economy [Ponzi Scheme] grows it starts to run out of other people's money and signs of failure start to appear. Wise Ponzi Schemers then open up freedom [Canada and Germany] - injection of legitimate financial growth - to prevent the Ponzi Scheme from collapsing. So the free market is allowed to operate enough to keep the scheme from collapsing [like a thermostat opening and closing] but if the thermostat gets stuck for political reasons [Obama the true believer, Soviets, Nazi's, North Korea, Cuba, etc.] then the correction of excess does not happen and the scheme goes into authoritarianism to maintain the power even as the finances of the scheme itself has collapsed.

Like the mob stealing from a business the managed-market economy can endure to a point as long as the mobster's son - a true believer - doesn't take over and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs. The question then becomes why allow the mobster in to begin with?

Dennis,

Apart from the fact that I don't think Obama is a "true believer" in socialism per se, the point I am making is one of degree.

I agree, social democracy is bad, we shouldn't let it in, etc. etc.

All I am saying is that we should be careful to not conflate Social Democrats with State Socialists. That is all.

[dennislmay]

As the managed-market economy [Ponzi Scheme] grows it starts to run out of other people's money and signs of failure start to appear. Wise Ponzi Schemers then open up freedom [Canada and Germany] - injection of legitimate financial growth - to prevent the Ponzi Scheme from collapsing. So the free market is allowed to operate enough to keep the scheme from collapsing [like a thermostat opening and closing] but if the thermostat gets stuck for political reasons [Obama the true believer, Soviets, Nazi's, North Korea, Cuba, etc.] then the correction of excess does not happen and the scheme goes into authoritarianism to maintain the power even as the finances of the scheme itself has collapsed.

Like the mob stealing from a business the managed-market economy can endure to a point as long as the mobster's son - a true believer - doesn't take over and destroy the goose laying the golden eggs. The question then becomes why allow the mobster in to begin with?

Dennis,

Apart from the fact that I don't think Obama is a "true believer" in socialism per se, the point I am making is one of degree.

I agree, social democracy is bad, we shouldn't let it in, etc. etc.

All I am saying is that we should be careful to not conflate Social Democrats with State Socialists. That is all.

Social Democratic rule is an early unstable-unsustainable stage before the onset of State Socialism - if that helps to clarify my view. Obama is a true believer in authoritarian rule - Socialists are never really true believers in socialism because socialism is for the people, not the socialists. That is why after authoritarian rule is in place those who want "pure-true believer" socialism go up against the wall as they did in Russia and Germany. "pure-true believer" socialism fails immediately every time it is tried.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Social Democratic rule is an early unstable-unsustainable stage before the onset of State Socialism - if that helps to clarify my view. Obama is a true believer in authoritarian rule - Socialists are never really true believers in socialism because socialism is for the people, not the socialists. That is why after authoritarian rule is in place those who want "pure-true believer" socialism go up against the wall as they did in Russia and Germany. "pure-true believer" socialism fails immediately every time it is tried.

Dennis

Do you think Germany needs a war. They have the only smoothly functioning economy on the European mainland.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Social Democratic rule is an early unstable-unsustainable stage before the onset of State Socialism - if that helps to clarify my view. Obama is a true believer in authoritarian rule - Socialists are never really true believers in socialism because socialism is for the people, not the socialists. That is why after authoritarian rule is in place those who want "pure-true believer" socialism go up against the wall as they did in Russia and Germany. "pure-true believer" socialism fails immediately every time it is tried.

Dennis

Do you think Germany needs a war. They have the only smoothly functioning economy on the European mainland.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Germany is the only thing holding the EU together but their recently enacted energy policies require Russian cooperation. If the Germans and Russians formed an alliance they would control Europe. In other words Germany does not need a war but when the rest of the EU financially crumbles their productive economy will no longer be able to bankroll the rest of the Europeans so interesting things will happen. The Germans will have no incentive to rebuild Europe unless they and their energy partners the Russians run things. Somewhere in that mix war will break out.

Dennis

[PDS]

Social Democratic rule is an early unstable-unsustainable stage before the onset of State Socialism - if that helps to clarify my view. Obama is a true believer in authoritarian rule - Socialists are never really true believers in socialism because socialism is for the people, not the socialists. That is why after authoritarian rule is in place those who want "pure-true believer" socialism go up against the wall as they did in Russia and Germany. "pure-true believer" socialism fails immediately every time it is tried.

Dennis

Do you think Germany needs a war. They have the only smoothly functioning economy on the European mainland.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Germany is the only thing holding the EU together but their recently enacted energy policies require Russian cooperation. If the Germans and Russians formed an alliance they would control Europe. In other words Germany does not need a war but when the rest of the EU financially crumbles their productive economy will no longer be able to bankroll the rest of the Europeans so interesting things will happen. The Germans will have no incentive to rebuild Europe unless they and their energy partners the Russians run things. Somewhere in that mix war will break out.

Dennis

Where did you ever get the notion that, in the wake of an alliance between Russia and Germany, the resulting turmoil would cause a war to break out?

Dennis: this is coming dangerously close to satire.

[dennislmay]

Social Democratic rule is an early unstable-unsustainable stage before the onset of State Socialism - if that helps to clarify my view. Obama is a true believer in authoritarian rule - Socialists are never really true believers in socialism because socialism is for the people, not the socialists. That is why after authoritarian rule is in place those who want "pure-true believer" socialism go up against the wall as they did in Russia and Germany. "pure-true believer" socialism fails immediately every time it is tried.

Dennis

Do you think Germany needs a war. They have the only smoothly functioning economy on the European mainland.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Germany is the only thing holding the EU together but their recently enacted energy policies require Russian cooperation. If the Germans and Russians formed an alliance they would control Europe. In other words Germany does not need a war but when the rest of the EU financially crumbles their productive economy will no longer be able to bankroll the rest of the Europeans so interesting things will happen. The Germans will have no incentive to rebuild Europe unless they and their energy partners the Russians run things. Somewhere in that mix war will break out.

Dennis

Where did you ever get the notion that, in the wake of an alliance between Russia and Germany, the resulting turmoil would cause a war to break out?

Dennis: this is coming dangerously close to satire.

Last week on his radio show Glenn Beck was discussing the Cyprus banking failures during one show and noted that Russian investors were taking a big hit because of Germany but Russia wasn't saying much about it. A couple days later a similar discussion also included how Germany and therefore the EU were entirely dependent upon Russian energy sources and that Russia can pretty much shut down the European economy anytime it wants and will likely extract all kinds of concessions in partnership with Germany [who has the most to lose] or the whole financial crisis will spin out of control. World War breaking out spills over - it might not start in Europe but no doubt at some point will involve Europe because of it being a major financial player.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Glenn Beck is a buffoon.

[Reidy]

The present analysis would seem to imply that the western European countries, which go in for heavy statism and economic interventionism, would be chronically at war with each other. In fact this hasn't happened in almost 70 years. Several have been involved in wars (along with the US) in the Balkans or outside Europe, but not with each other. Doesn't this bother you?