History among some young people in Sweden is Dead!

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Grey_Wolf
So you would have liked having the Soviet Union rule all of Europe then?

Not at all! I like my freedom (such as it is) and would fight to defend it.

What I meant was that I don't think the Soviets really had any ambition to rule all of Europe.

Their militaristic posture was largely defensive, and in response to the West's military build-up, which was, of course, in response to the Soviet military build-up, etc etc and so it went on.

Of course, it provided both sides with a hate figure with which to frighten their populace and justify totalitarianism (on the Soviet side) and massive military spending (on the both sides).

It should be pretty clear why environmental degradation threatens our freedom. But the argument would go that global capitalism also threatens our freedom by eroding our ability to control our own destiny.

Do you really think that communism poses a greater threat to your freedom than these?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Grey_Wolf
Nowadays, globalisation and degradation of the environment are probably higher up the list than communism (which was probably not that much of a threat in the first place).

So you would have liked having the Soviet Union rule all of Europe then?

I missed that. Good thing you mentioned that. If it wasn't for the US - all of Europe woudl have been communist after WWII. It's these types of statements about how communism not being that much of a threat - that really makes me question whether Western Europeans really do just like to have their head in the sand.

Cross post with Gaffer - he made himself clearer.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Not at all! I like my freedom (such as it is) and would fight to defend it.

What I meant was that I don't think the Soviets really had any ambition to rule all of Europe.

I disagree that Russia didn't want to take over all of Europe. They worked very hard in the early days after WWII to destabalize the European governments. The only reason they didn't do it militarily was because the US stood in their way. If they had their choice - they would NOT have stopped at East Germany.

Their militaristic posture was largely defensive, and in response to the West's military build-up, which was, of course, in response to the Soviet military build-up, etc etc and so it went on.

Of course, it provided both sides with a hate figure with which to frighten their populace and justify totalitarianism (on the Soviet side) and massive military spending (on the both sides).

Our massive military build up was in driect response to the Soviet Union.

It should be pretty clear why environmental degradation threatens our freedom. But the argument would go that global capitalism also threatens our freedom by eroding our ability to control our own destiny.

Do you really think that communism poses a greater threat to your freedom than these?

I think socialism poses a threat to my individual freedom. I do not think that capitalism poses this same threat.

[brownjenkins]

every state, including DC, has at least 2 senators and 3 electoral votes (equal to senators plus congressmen)... so in that sense, things are weighted towards the less-populated states... granted, it was intended that way, but it's not truely democratic

"When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have freedom." - Thomas Paine

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
every state, including DC, has at least 2 senators and 3 electoral votes (equal to senators plus congressmen)... so in that sense, things are weighted towards the less-populated states... granted, it was intended that way, but it's not truely democratic

"When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have freedom." - Thomas Paine

Exactly - and we have a democratic-republic anyway. We don't even have to vote for the president. In the early days of the country - the state legislatures voted for president. The way each state votes for president (the electoral college members) is left up to the individual states..

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I disagree that Russia didn't want to take over all of Europe. They worked very hard in the early days after WWII to destabalize the European governments. The only reason they didn't do it militarily was because the US stood in their way. If they had their choice - they would NOT have stopped at East Germany.

Well, to me it's obvious that the main reason Europe was freed from Nazism was because of the US intervention, and that put a stop to the advance of the Red Army which would've wiped Germany off the map altogether.

But I wonder what your evidence / reasoning is for the above statement.

Originally posted by jerseydevil

I think socialism poses a threat to my individual freedom. I do not think that capitalism poses this same threat.

The point was the actual threat of having communism/socialism imposed on us is pretty remote these day (and always was, IMHO, but that's up for debate); global capitalism is here right now.

So, if you're a political activist who thinks that global capitalism erodes liberty, then what would be the point in harping on about communism?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Well, to me it's obvious that the main reason Europe was freed from Nazism was because of the US intervention, and that put a stop to the advance of the Red Army which would've wiped Germany off the map altogether.

But I wonder what your evidence / reasoning is for the above statement.

They had tried to infiltrate many of the European governments with Soviet supporters. They wanted to bring change to those governments from the inside.

The point was the actual threat of having communism/socialism imposed on us is pretty remote these day (and always was, IMHO, but that's up for debate); global capitalism is here right now.

I agree it's remote now - I do not think it was remote then.

So, if you're a political activist who thinks that global capitalism erodes liberty, then what would be the point in harping on about communism?

If this is directed at me - I do not think that capitalism erodes liberty - therefore I can harp on communism. I love capitalism - it enables me to work for what I want. Set up my own company. Enjoy to fruit of my labor. Trade between nations - generally brings peace. You don't want to attack your trading partners. Of course there are trade wars. Europe has protectionist stands and the US has protectionist stands.

[The Gaffer]

Well, we're agreed on the last point.

The communist parties were pretty powerful, especially in Italy, but if there was much infiltration going on it was pretty ineffectual.

BTW, it wasn't directed at you

I really ought to use "one", as IIRC this misunderstanding has happened before (deja vu) but it does make one sound awfully like the bloody queen or something

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Well, we're agreed on the last point.

The communist parties were pretty powerful, especially in Italy, but if there was much infiltration going on it was pretty ineffectual.

And France. And Greece. Without the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan I think most of Western Europe would have become at least subject to "Finlandization", if not brought totally behind the Iron Curtain.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
And France. And Greece. Without the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan I think most of Western Europe would have become at least subject to "Finlandization", if not brought totally behind the Iron Curtain.

Nah, can't see it myself. Not to say that the Marshall Plan wasn't totally instrumental in the rebuilding of these shattered countries, but I think nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction had a far greater influence on the specific element of Soviet ambitions.

The far left in Europe post-1945 was riven with factionalism. They could've been the inspiration for the "Judean People's Front / People's Front of Judea" sketch in Holy Grail. Most of them had also turned their backs on Soviet-style communism when Stalin signed his pact with Hitler in the 30s.

[Jonathan]

Without the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, there would have been lots of politics of discontent in Europe, which would have benefited the communists and increased their numbers.
So even if there wouldn't have been Soviet-style communism (maybe because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which The Gaffer mentioned), the devastated countries in Western Europe might still have fallen under communist rule. And if they did, they would probably have become Soviet satellite states sooner or later.

[The Gaffer]

Well, that's probably true, and I'm sure it was one of the reasons why they had the Marshall Plan. And Britain elected probably its most radical socialist government in 1945.

Again, though, I don't think this would've led to totalitarian, Soviet-style regimes.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Yes - I have. And the majority of the demonstrators that came to Seattle were from Europe. Also- Seattle and the west coast in general is the most left leaning part of the country. There is a reason why the west coast's nickname is the "left coast"

I'd like to see some references on "majority of the demonstrators came from Europe." As I recall and as a Google check seems to show, most of the demonstrators were from American organisations- including large turnouts from the unions. Funny how nobody seemed to notice the invasion of a large American city by tens of thousands of foreigners.

As for the west coast being lefty - does that make them less than "real Americans"? sort of honorary Euro-weenies?

What do you mean? How does the Senate stongly overweight rural and underdeveloped areas dependent on agricultured and textiles? For that matter - how does the electorial college? The electorial college protects the rights of smaller states - by making sure they have a voice in the presidential elections. Each state has the same number of votes as they have members in Congress.

The electoral college only slightly, as brownjenkins pointed out.

The Senate? Wyoming (pop. 493,000) North Dakota (642,000) South Dakota (750,000) each have two senators; so does California (33,000,000) New York (19 million) and New Jersey (8.4 milllion)

And while some of the larger states have big agricultural sectors, proportionately far fewer people in them make their living that way.

[GrayMouser]

Although I think it's true that a lot of anti-globalisation supporters (not only in Europe) are pretty selective in who they target.

It's always poor Starbucks and McDonalds; never Sony or Mitsubishi or BMW or Nokia or even Chanel.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I'd like to see some references on "majority of the demonstrators came from Europe." As I recall and as a Google check seems to show, most of the demonstrators were from American organisations- including large turnouts from the unions. Funny how nobody seemed to notice the invasion of a large American city by tens of thousands of foreigners.

Most of the violence originated from the foreign demonstrators. There were a lot of anarchists from Europe who incited much of the violence.

As for the west coast being lefty - does that make them less than "real Americans"? sort of honorary Euro-weenies?

No - they're real Americans - just closer to the Eruo-whiner mind frame.

The electoral college only slightly, as brownjenkins pointed out.

Technically it is states who vote for the president. It is not the "general" population. The wya the president is elected is left up to the states - it just so happens that all states now use the popular vote format right now. A state can easily go back to the legislature voting for the president.

The Senate? Wyoming (pop. 493,000) North Dakota (642,000) South Dakota (750,000) each have two senators; so does California (33,000,000) New York (19 million) and New Jersey (8.4 milllion)

And while some of the larger states have big agricultural sectors, proportionately far fewer people in them make their living that way.

The senate was purposely composed with 2 members. There was the Virginia plan that created the House of Representative (representation based on population) and the New Jersey Plan which created the Senate (fixed number of representation). As I have stated elsewhere - we have state right here. The small states did not want to end up being ruled by the large states.

A very good book to read that will show you why the founding fathers set things up the way they did is...

Decision in Phildelphia

Although I think it's true that a lot of anti-globalisation supporters (not only in Europe) are pretty selective in who they target.

It's always poor Starbucks and McDonalds; never Sony or Mitsubishi or BMW or Nokia or even Chanel.

Becuase it has nothng to do with anti-globalization and everything to do with anti-Americanism. As you pointed out - it is only American companies who are targeted.

As for the marshall Plan - it was partially to make sure that western Europe did not go communist. It was concerned if the economies did not pick up quickly in Europe and jobs created - that Communism would have taken hold and then they would have been satellite states of the Soviet Union and all of Europe would have been red.