Meet Elke. This inspiring woman was born in Hitler’s Germany and lived under communist rule for years before becoming an American citizen.
Her video explanation of what happened in Germany under communism and the parallels to our current administration and the path we are on will give you a chill.

is this a thread about politics?

quote Originally posted by lurker: is this a thread about politics?

No, its about Communism.

Thats what he stated anyway, a warning about communism not working.

This is a political thread. The similarities mentioned in the video mirror the direction our nation is headed in and the outcome of continuing down that path.

What she says is largely true and I agree. Some aspects I take issue with:

- "They take god out". Germany in general is a highly secular country and especially younger people tend not to be religious at all, even in what used to be West Germany (that's where I was born)
- Funny: "they take out religious training" but she complains about communist indoctrination! Where's the difference? Indoctrination of children is indoctrination of children.
- "They take guns away". Gun control laws are as strict in what used to be West Germany and in Germany today as they were in the former East Germany.

That most Germans see the "US as the land of dreams" is not accurate, in my experience. Most people I know are critical of the role the US plays on a global scale. So much so that I often disagree with them because I really don't want to see how things are if the Chinese or Russians were running the show!

I am of the opinion that communism doesn't work because it's contrary to the egoistical instincts in human nature and is therefore easily used to create a dictatorship (see China, North Korea, Cuba still today). In my opinion, real (theoretical) communism has never existed anywhere, ever. It's just not something humans want to do even though the theory sounds nice. However, you would be surprised how many people who lived in East Germany are now nostalgic of the "good old days" of communism (read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgie). The former ruling communist party even is a major political force in the former East Germany (read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Linke) and I just cannot understand that! People just forget about everything! It's quite incredible!

Her arguments connecting communism as it existed in East Germany to political developments in the US today was weak and very unconvincing. She really didn't make a valid point but pandered to the pre-existing opinions of US conservatives (take away god and guns and change health-care and POOF! you have communism).

And she still has a really bad accent for having lived here since she was 17 years old

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: - Funny: "they take out religious training" but she complains about communist indoctrination! Where's the difference? Indoctrination of children is indoctrination of children.

The difference is the choice of the family/parents versus the power of the state. This country was founded on individual liberty and choice, which includes the family. Communism is the will of the state, enforced by the powers of the laws and the might of the government. Quite different.

quote - "They take guns away". Gun control laws are as strict in what used to be West Germany and in Germany today as they were in the former East Germany.

Most of Europe used to under monarchy, and the establishment of the freedom to bear arms in this country comes from the recognition of a disarmed populace being easier to control.

quote That most Germans see the "US as the land of dreams" is not accurate, in my experience. Most people I know are critical of the role the US plays on a global scale. So much so that I often disagree with them because I really don't want to see how things are if the Chinese or Russians were running the show!

But does our occasionally flawed foreign policy override people's desire to come to a land that is free and has so much opportunity?

I am of the opinion that communism doesn't work because it's contrary to the egoistical instincts in human nature and is therefore easily used to create a dictatorship (see China, North Korea, Cuba still today). In my opinion, real (theoretical) communism has never existed anywhere, ever.[/quote]

And it can't precisely because it is so against our basic nature. I will NEVER work, but that doesn't keep the brain damaged liberals from trying, over and over again. One reason why I fight them so hard...because what they want (or think they want), cannot work.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: And it can't precisely because it is so against our basic nature. I will NEVER work,

Seems like we agree on that.

quote Originally posted by fierobear:but that doesn't keep the brain damaged liberals from trying, over and over again. One reason why I ht them so hard...because what they want (or think they want), cannot work.

It just seems that many people are confused as to what "communism" is. There are many examples how gun control, a secular humanism and public health-care care be a part of a successful market-based society. Just labeling everything you don't agree with "communism" is intellectually lazy.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: It just seems that many people are confused as to what "communism" is. There are many examples how gun control, a secular humanism and public health-care care be a part of a successful market-based society. Just labeling everything you don't agree with "communism" is intellectually lazy.

I can see that point. But it seems like the factors mentioned are usually components of communism, or at least the communists states that exist or have been tried.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: What she says is largely true and I agree. Some aspects I take issue with: - "They take god out". Germany in general is a highly secular country and especially younger people tend not to be religious at all, even in what used to be West Germany (that's where I was born) - Funny: "they take out religious training" but she complains about communist indoctrination! Where's the difference? Indoctrination of children is indoctrination of children. - "They take guns away". Gun control laws are as strict in what used to be West Germany and in Germany today as they were in the former East Germany. That most Germans see the "US as the land of dreams" is not accurate, in my experience. Most people I know are critical of the role the US plays on a global scale. So much so that I often disagree with them because I really don't want to see how things are if the Chinese or Russians were running the show! I am of the opinion that communism doesn't work because it's contrary to the egoistical instincts in human nature and is therefore easily used to create a dictatorship (see China, North Korea, Cuba still today). In my opinion, real (theoretical) communism has never existed anywhere, ever. It's just not something humans want to do even though the theory sounds nice. However, you would be surprised how many people who lived in East Germany are now nostalgic of the "good old days" of communism (read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgie). The former ruling communist party even is a major political force in the former East Germany (read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Linke) and I just cannot understand that! People just forget about everything! It's quite incredible! Her arguments connecting communism as it existed in East Germany to political developments in the US today was weak and very unconvincing. She really didn't make a valid point but pandered to the pre-existing opinions of US conservatives (take away god and guns and change health-care and POOF! you have communism). And she still has a really bad accent for having lived here since she was 17 years old

Well said. I think the only way "communism" works is in small groups, i.e. communes. 10 or 20 people living and working together and sharing everything can work... maybe. But on a national scale? No way. As you said, human nature corrupts it. That's what our Founding Fathers understood and why they designed our government to not be based on trust or goodness in people, but on checks and balances to keep anyone from gaining too much power.

The taking God out part always bothers me. I really don't see it as much of an issue, much less than it's made out to be. If we're to truly have religious freedom, our government has to be secular by definition. It's not about forbidding religion - it's about keeping religion out of government and letting people worship as they see fit.. or not. You can thank the Cold War for that, as it was one way our government tried to differentiate us from "those Godless Commies." It's also when "under God" was added to our Pledge of Allegiance.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Well said. I think the only way "communism" works is in small groups, i.e. communes. 10 or 20 people living and working together and sharing everything can work... maybe. But on a national scale? No way. As you said, human nature corrupts it. That's what our Founding Fathers understood and why they designed our government to not be based on trust or goodness in people, but on checks and balances to keep anyone from gaining too much power.

It can even fail in small groups or communities. From the real story of the first Thanksgiving:

On August 1, 1620, a ship called the "Mayflower" left England with 102 passengers bound for the New World. The manifest included two groups. The Separatists, led by William Bradford, had fled their homeland and the oppressive Church of England under King James I in search of a home where they could live and worship God according to their own conscience. The Strangers sought the New World for other reasons. Together they formed the Pilgrims.

Their intended crossing to Virginia strayed off course, and they instead landed on Cape Cod -- outside the territory covered by the King's Charter. Thus, the Pilgrims were responsible for their own governance. Following the nine-week journey, the Pilgrims composed an agreement that would establish just and equal laws for all members of the new community. Indeed, the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact were derived from none other than the Holy Bible.

Only then, on November 11, 1620, did the Pilgrims leave the Mayflower. A cold and barren wilderness awaited them. There were no friends to greet them, no houses to shelter them, nor stores of food to sustain them. That first winter was perilous, as half the Pilgrims died of starvation, sickness, or exposure.

When spring arrived, an Indian named Squanto taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish, use fertilizer, and stalk deer. Bradford wrote that Squanto was "a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectations."

In October, following their first harvest, Governor Bradford set aside a day of thanksgiving. Squanto, his chief Massasoit, and other members of the tribe were invited to the thanksgiving feast. The Indians brought deer and turkeys, while the Pilgrim women cooked vegetables and fruit pies. The purpose of the feast was not to give thanks to the Indians or Mother Earth, as contemporary history textbooks commonly report, but as a devout expression of gratitude to God.

What modern history texts also omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.

William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."

Three hundred and eighty-two years later, Americans still set aside the fourth Thursday in November each year as a celebration of thanksgiving. Although this quintessentially American holiday has become more secular than religious, it was originated by devoutly Christian people who were expressing gratitude for the bounty brought forth by their labor and the blessings bestowed upon them by God.

Hmmm, let me see if I got this straight:

Under the Nazis and the Communists they:

1) Nationalized health Care
2) Nationalized Banking
3) Nationalized Industry
4) Took away guns
5) Spoke about helping the "poor and working classes"


And the result was:

1) 23 years and Billions of Marks to bring East Berlin out of the Stone Age to current building safety codes, health standards, and living wages.
2) Thousands of murders of citizens trying to escape
3) Lowest national productivity in Europe
4) A Black Market of goods smuggled across the border that dwarfs America's Drug War

Still think Socialism can work?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Still think Socialism can work?

I alsready stated several times that I think socialism/communism (as opposed to social market economy or social democracy) doesn't and cannot work.

The logic of your post is not conclusive, though.

quote And she still has a really bad accent for having lived here since she was 17 years old

Not at all unusual. I've known many many Hispanic adults who were actually born here (USA) and still have a significant Mexican accent, and know 2 forum members who have been gone from their native homeland many many years, but still have a very pronounced and unmistakable British accent.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-19-2012).]

Social democracy
Social democracy is an international political movement and political ideology that has undergone three major phases throughout its history.[1] In contemporary uses, social democracy generally refers to advocacy for some form of regulation of the economy and support for a welfare state and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of a mixed economy. Historically, social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.[2]

Contemporary Social democracy is defined as a political movement that seeks to profoundly reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.[3][4] Contemporary Social democratic policies include support for a welfare state, Keynesian macro-economic policies, and collective bargaining arrangements to balance the power of capital and labor.[5] Social corporatism has been developed by social democrats in Sweden and various other countries. Examples of contemporary social democracy include the Nordic model and social market economy.

Historical Social democracy in the 19th century encompassed a wide variety of non-revolutionary and revolutionary currents of socialism, but excluded anarchism. In the early 20th century, social democracy came to refer to a political strategy of reformism favoring a gradual process of developing socialism through existing political structures, and an opposition to revolutionary means of achieving socialism.[3]

Social democratic political parties around the world, such as the British Labour Party, the Socialist Party of France, and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, are joined in an international federation called the Socialist International (SI).

]http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...al_democracy

Reading this makes me want to vomit. How could anyone think this would work?


Social economy: a third sector in economies

Economies may be considered to have three sectors:

the business private sector, which is privately owned and profit motivated;
the public sector which is owned by the state on behalf of the people of the state;
the social economy, that embraces a wide range of community, voluntary and not-for-profit activities.

Sometimes there is also reference to a fourth sector, the informal sector, where informal exchanges take place between family and friends.

The third sector can be broken down into three sub-sectors; the community sector, the voluntary sector and the social enterprise sector:

The community sector includes those organisations active on a local or community level, usually small, modestly funded and largely dependent on voluntary, rather than paid, effort. Examples include neighbourhood watch, small community associations, civic societies, small support groups, etc.

The UK's National Council for Voluntary Organisations describes the voluntary sector as including those organizations that are: formal (they have a constitution); independent of government and self-governing; not-for-profit and operate with a meaningful degree of volunteer involvement. Examples include housing associations, large charities, large community associations, national campaign organisations, etc.

According to the UK government's definition, the social enterprise sector includes organisations which "are businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners". Examples include co-operatives, building societies, development trusts and credit unions.

The social economy spans economic activity in the community, voluntary and social enterprise sectors. The economic activity, as with any other economic sector, includes: employment; financial transactions; the occupation of property; pensions; trading; etc.

The social economy usually develops because of a need to find new and innovative solutions to issues (whether they be socially, economically or environmentally based) and to satisfy the needs of members and users which have been ignored or inadequately fulfilled by the private or public sectors.

By using solutions to achieve not-for-profit aims, it is generally believed that the social economy has a distinct and valuable role to play in helping create a strong, sustainable, prosperous and inclusive society.

Successful social economy organisations can play an important role in helping deliver many key governmental policy objectives by:

helping to drive up productivity and competitiveness;
contributing to socially inclusive wealth creation;
enabling individuals and communities to work towards regenerating their local neighbourhoods;
showing new ways to deliver public services; and
helping to develop an inclusive society and active citizenship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_economy

Another really, really, bad idea. If this third sector could at least hold its own, without the government pouring resources in, then it would be fine. However, we know that isn't going to happen.

These are terrible ideas.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 03-19-2012).]

quote Originally posted by htexans1: No, its about Communism. Thats what he stated anyway, a warning about communism not working.

Really its not about communism, but fascism or socialism. The differences between communism and socialism are distinct.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Reading this makes me want to vomit.

Oh, you have the Santorum issue

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Another really, really, bad idea. If this third sector could at least hold its own, without the government pouring resources in, then it would be fine. However, we know that isn't going to happen. These are terrible ideas.

Hmmmmm, it is exactly the political and economical system in place in Germany and most of northern Europe (e.g. Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, partly Switzerland, UK and Canada) and it seems to be working quite well. Saying that something can't possibly work when it demonstrably and successfully does makes your argument look bad, I think.

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 03-19-2012).]

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Hmmmmm, it is exactly the political and economical system in place in Germany and most of northern Europe (Austria, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, partly Switzerland) and it seems to be working quite well. Saying that something can't possibly work when it demonstrably and successfully does makes your argument look bad, I think.

Hasn't worked very well in this country. See GM.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Hasn't worked very well in this country. See GM.

That is no proof that it can't work, which is what you were saying. You are of the opinion that the reforms of the New Deal and later, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid were a bad idea and should be abolished?

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 03-19-2012).]

I certainly am, especially in the case of SS.

We can no longer afford these programs, a big military or a big govt. And in all liklihood, we never will be able to again.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: That is no proof that it can't work, which is what you were saying. You are of the opinion that the reforms of the New Deal and later, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid were a bad idea and should be abolished?

Why are you so for the gov taking care of you? I want jobs back and a fair chance to make, and I want the gov to stay out of everything. I guess some of us like earning a living, and some of us just want the gov to keep us alive.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone:

This is just an aside observation, not meant to distract from y'all's otherwise entertaining discussion of "I'm right!" "No, I am!" That's for you to hammer out.

But, Yellowstone, the charts you posted presumed to "differentiate" countries based on small variations in the third, or even fourth, significant digit of calculated numbers.

I have to ask, what was the raw data on which that result was based? Was it a scale of 1 to 10? 1 to 5? If so, the results are no better than the first significant digit, +/- 0.5

Too many people assume that, because their calculators display eight digits beyond the decimal point, the displayed result is a valid number. One must propagate the likely error in the achieved result to have a meaningful basis of discussion. There are mathematically verifiable means of doing so.

Habe ich nicht die rechts behalten?

Without knowing more about the raw data, your charts appear meaningless.

Edited to add: I saw the notation on the second chart saying "based on a scale of 1 to 10, based on nine factors." That would appear to wipe out the differentiation claimed by that table (add +/- 0.5 to all of the numbers listed, you get a 15+ -way tie for first. (The first fifteen don't even encompass the whole of the possible error range, but the chart cut it off at 15)). But even that's not really clear. Were the 9 factors weighted in some fashion? If so, how? Any weighting would affect the error calculation, in all likelihood, lessening the accuracy (that is, increasing the probable error) of the result.

[This message has been edited by Shyster (edited 03-20-2012).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Why are you so for the gov taking care of you? I want jobs back and a fair chance to make, and I want the gov to stay out of everything. I guess some of us like earning a living, and some of us just want the gov to keep us alive.

There is a difference in what good for oneself and what one believes to be right for the society one lives in. I'm a small business owner, we offer a luxury service that no-one "needs" and rely on people with significant disposable income. We get up at 5AM almost every day (7AM on Saturdays) and work until 9:30PM (4PM on Saturdays). I'm also fortunate enough to be born into a well off (not filthy rich) family and I will probably never have to rely on government handouts. So I should be a low tax, low regulation guy but I'm not.

I've seen different societies at work and I've given a lot of thought to the pros and cons of each. My personal conclusion is that the social setup that exists in northern Europe is what works best for the most people in society. That doesn't mean it's perfect or that it doesn't need constant tweaking. It is also expensive and needs a strong, competitive and innovative economy to be sustainable. I think that's why they have all those problems in southern Europe now: they wanted all the spoils without the work and that is impossible.

I also believe that a pure market economy produces undesirable and even dangerous outcomes because of the deeply flawed human nature. Government is the only, if imperfect, way to keep a balance between individual freedoms and the necessities of a modern society. "No man is an island", and the more complex and intertwined our society becomes, ever less so.

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 03-20-2012).]

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: That is no proof that it can't work, which is what you were saying. You are of the opinion that the reforms of the New Deal and later, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid were a bad idea and should be abolished?

YES. The only reason those programs got started in the first place was because FDR stacked the Supreme Court enough to ignore the Constitution.

Of course, we've gone so many decades with this cr@p in place that Americans no longer know how to take care of themselves, so getting rid of these programs would be very difficult politically. NONE of those programs are fiscally solvent.

[This message has been edited by dsnover (edited 03-20-2012).]