History among some young people in Sweden is Dead!

[Grey_Wolf]

I was quite shocked to be informed by a fellow-poster on another forum that "communism is not a threat anymore" so why should we oppose it or demonstrate against it.

China, North-Korea, Cuba and Vietnam still exists, but according to him not a threat to Sweden or the Western world, despite the fact that at least two of them have nuclear weapons.

[Jonathan]

Communism is still a threat to the Western world. Although I don't think Vietnam or Cuba can threaten the West too much, North Korea is a great menace if I ever saw one. And China can be scary at times too. Just look at how the Chinese act towards Taiwan.

[edit] By the way, in what thread did you read that post, Grey Wolf?

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Communism is still a threat to the Western world. Although I don't think Vietnam or Cuba can threaten the West too much, North Korea is a great menace if I ever saw one. And China can be scary at times too. Just look at how the Chinese act towards Taiwan.

[edit] By the way, in what thread did you read that post, Grey Wolf?

In the sub-forum Politik in Helsingborgs Dagblads Forum.

http://www.hd.se/debatt/detalj.shtml...84&kat=politik

Maybe this particular "adress" isn't symtomatic for opinions among young swedes today but I still become afraid when I see all these red flags in the demonstrations shown on tv and pictures from these demonstrations in newspapers.

[Ruinel]

IMO, I think any country can have any political system/government that they so choose. Just don't force your messed up system on me.

For example, it was brought to my attention that France has such an extreme separation of church and state that students that go to a public school are not allowed to wear or display any religious attire or symbol of their religion. Yamikas (sp?, for Jewish boys) or head scarfs (not sure of the name, for Muslim girls ) are forbidden. IMO, I think that's quite an extreme stance to take. (BTW, I only heard this, I'm not a student of French government and therefore, I might be wrong!!! Please correct me if I am.)

In the US, public school teachers are NOT allowed to express their religious views or encourage their own religious views to the students. If the students wear religious attire or symbols of their religion, it's their choice, and their right to do so is guaranteed under the Constitution.

As for Communism, although it is a noble thought that all people work in harmony for the betterment of the group as a whole, it doesn't work. Why? Because people, as a whole, are ambitious, greedy and prone to corruption. The communist (really socialist) government of the USSR fell. Cuba is in dire straights. And the only thing that holds up China (IMO) is their trade with other countries. People in North Korea are starving. Why? Why is their system not working?

Comment on supporting communism
In the US, all goods must have the origin of that product labeled someplace (I know not all countries do this). So, my suggestion is: look for the label, and purchase wisely (even if you have to pay an extra $0.50 or $1.00 for the item).

[GrayMouser]

We should oppose or protest against Communist governments because they are tyrannical states which crush the rights of their citizens.

As for being threats to Sweden or the Western world:

Cuba- about the only threat would be if you went as a tourist and were overcharged for your Cuba Libre. They'll hang on till Fidel dies, and then be swamped with Yanqui dollars.

Vietnam- A nasty Communist police state still, but one where the nasty Communist police spend most of their time beating up workers who protest over the horrible conditions they face making sports shoes for the Western world.

North Korea- The thought of Kim Jong-il with nukes is not particularly reassuring, but I think he'll only be a threat to Anybody if Anybody is a threat to him. Of course, there's the possibility of him selling the Bomb to terrorists, but I don't think he's that crazy, especially these days- he's on a pretty tight watch, with no particular friends left.

The South Koreans don't seem particlarly worried, and they live next door.

Which leaves...

China- Again, nasty nasty government- they've just launched a big crackdown on the Internet, sentencing college kids to long prison sentences for calling for democracy.
OTOH they're so eager to take their "rightful place" in the world that they're not about to upset any apple carts.

They're really only a big threat to Taiwan...Hey, that's me

Actually I think that'll be resoved peacefully too. Most people here are not particularly fond of the Mainland, but realize they have to live with it. Of course, lots of wars have started from miscalculations

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
...Vietnam- A nasty Communist police state still, but one where the nasty Communist police spend most of their time beating up workers who protest over the horrible conditions they face making sports shoes for the Western world.

*everyone checks the sports shoes in their closet.* Oh, nope... not me... all I have is hiking boots and they are made in Italy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
For example, it was brought to my attention that France has such an extreme separation of church and state that students that go to a public school are not allowed to wear or display any religious attire or symbol of their religion. Yamikas (sp?, for Jewish boys) or head scarfs (not sure of the name, for Muslim girls ) are forbidden. IMO, I think that's quite an extreme stance to take. (BTW, I only heard this, I'm not a student of French government and therefore, I might be wrong!!! Please correct me if I am.)

Well I have seen it on french news - France2. It's a big thing in France right now.

Here is the article that they linked from their website...Laïcité : bas les voiles?

Le 10 octobre, Alma et Lila Lévy étaient exclues définitivement du lycée Henri Wallon d'Aubervilliers.

L'affaire avait tout pour plaire aux médias: père juif athée, mère kabyle ne pratiquant pas de religion... A priori, le terreau familial ne portait pas Ã* l'islamisme. La décision du conseil de discipline intervenue cet automne était la conclusion d'un bras de fer entre l'administration scolaire et les deux lycéennes. Manipulation, entêtement d'adolescentes, ou conviction personnelle profondément enracinée ? Le temps tranchera.


Mais les réactions, elles, ont fusé. A commencer par l'émouvant témoignage de Ginette Lévy, la grand-mère des deux jeunes filles, qui écrivait dans "Le Monde" du 10 octobre "Je déteste leur conversion, leur voile, leur foulard et leur prière Ã* Allah, mais je les aime et souhaite qu'elles puissent vivre heureuses, et je crois que ce n'est que par la culture qu'elles recevront au cours de leurs études qu'elles pourront, peut-être, ne plus avoir besoin de l'islam, qui pour l'instant leur est nécessaire."

A l'opposé, le socialiste Malek Boutih, ancien président de SOS-Racisme, estimait que le foulard ne devait pas entrer Ã* l'école. Et d'ajouter sur LCi qu'il n'entendait pas pleurer sur deux filles d'avocat, qui trouveraient solution Ã* leur problème dans le privé ou ailleurs.

Education, exclusion, intégration, les grands mots étaient lâchés. Et la nécessité (ou non) de légiférer sur les signes religieux refaisait surface. Nommée en juillet, la commission Stasi doit rendre d'ici la fin de l'année ses conclusions sur l'opportunité d'une loi. Parallèlement, l'Assemblée a créé une mission d'information de 30 membres sur la question des signes religieux Ã* l'école, chargée de dresser un état des lieux et d'émettre des propositions.

Que disent les textes officiels pour l'instant ? Petit point de droit ci-dessous.....

Maybe Jonathan can translate it. My french is too rough for me to translate it properly for entmoot - but I might make an effort with my dictionary tonight.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Ruinel
For example, it was brought to my attention that France has such an extreme separation of church and state that students that go to a public school are not allowed to wear or display any religious attire or symbol of their religion. Yamikas (sp?, for Jewish boys) or head scarfs (not sure of the name, for Muslim girls ) are forbidden. IMO, I think that's quite an extreme stance to take.

I think it's more about the idea of Liberty, which has a very strong position in France, and not about separation of church and state. In France , no one has any right to force religious expressions onto others. Freedom is also freedom from such expressions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Artanis
I think it's more about the idea of Liberty, which has a very strong position in France, and not about separation of church and state. In France , no one has any right to force religious expressions onto others. Freedom is also freedom from such expressions.

Actually according to French news - it wasn't about that at all. It was strictly seperation of church and state. The girls were not "preaching" their beliefs toward anyone and the school suspended them solely because of the law defining the seperation of church and state.

I wish it was about Liberty - because then the girls would be able to wear their religious garb - like you can here.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually according to French news - it wasn't about that at all. It was strictly seperation of church and state. The girls were not "preaching" their beliefs toward anyone and the school suspended them solely because of the law defining the seperation of church and state.

I wish it was about Liberty - because then the girls would be able to wear their religious garb - like you can here.

I know they were not preaching, and I agree with Ruinel in that they are taking things to the extreme. At least they should then also ban Christian reliquies, like wearing a cross around the neck and so on. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think they define liberty different than you do in USA, and that the law about separation of church and state are based on their view of what liberty is.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Artanis
I know they were not preaching, and I agree with Ruinel in that they are taking things to the extreme. At least they should then also ban Christian reliquies, like wearing a cross around the neck and so on. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think they define liberty different than you do in USA, and that the law about separation of church and state are based on their view of what liberty is.

If that is their definition of freedom - then they definitely do define it differently than we do. We have freedom for the individual. We do not restrict the individual expression of religion. Students freely wear their religious clothes in schools. Muslims do wear their scarves in public schools here. From listening to the French news more - I have gathered that we value the individual more here than they do there. That is my observation from watching the French News. I'm not sure if most of Europe is like France or not though. I am glad we have a respect for individual freedom here.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
From listening to the French news more - I have gathered that we value the individual more here than they do there. That is my observation from watching the French News. I'm not sure if most of Europe is like France or not though. I am glad we have a respect for individual freedom here.

Yes, from what I know about USA I think you're right in that you value individualism more than Europe generally does. As opposite to Communism, where there is practically no room for the individual at all (just to finally make an almost on-topic remark in this thread)

[The Gaffer]

To get back to the original question, I think this may be to do with where people perceive the real threats to their way of life.

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).

It wouldn't surprise me if it made a comeback. Notably, Putin is reverting to Stalinist ways in Russia at the moment, and not without popular support (some people probably feel they were better off under a state-run monopoly than they are under a mafia-run one).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
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).

It seems like the only real place where people are really against globilisation is in Europe. It seems like that is more directed against the US anyway.

It wouldn't surprise me if it made a comeback. Notably, Putin is reverting to Stalinist ways in Russia at the moment, and not without popular support (some people probably feel they were better off under a state-run monopoly than they are under a mafia-run one).

I agree, but they have to take a tough stand against the mafia - which they weren't. The political system in Russia seems too corrupt and it's too easy for the mafia to pay off politicians. It is highly disturbing that Putin is arresting people who politically oppose him though. I used to think he was good for Russia (in the beginning I was concerned because of his KGB bacground) but after talking to Jonathan and after his arresting that businessman, and after the theater massacre - I am really questioning.

What is even more scary I think - is that France and Germany are trying to create another world power - with Russia being a part of it. If France and Germany succeed - I don't foresee the US and the Euopean countries on the Franco/German side being allies any longer. We will get into another cold war situation. I watch French news - and some of the things that France says on that is really scary.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It seems like the only real place where people are really against globilisation is in Europe. It seems like that is more directed against the US anyway.

Try the developing world. When push comes to shove, apparently no-one is in favour of globalisation where it doesn't suit them (e.g. steel tariffs).

I agree it would not be a good thing to get into a new Cold War situation. The real question is, how to avoid it? At the moment it would appear to be a choice between that and doing what the US says.

Conventionally, this would be achieved by having an international agency which everyone signs up to. However, that would mean having to put up with being outvoted by cheese-eating surrender monkeys from time to time.

Re: ignorance of history. I have a friend who teaches history at an English university. Every year he has to explain who Maggie Thatcher is to his tutorial groups.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Try the developing world. When push comes to shove, apparently no-one is in favour of globalisation where it doesn't suit them (e.g. steel tariffs).

Or European food tariffs.

AS to my statement - it is Europeans (particularly the French) who are always ransacking american businesses - particularly McDonalds. Just last week a McDonalds in France was destroyed by anti-Globalisationists. That has nothing to do with tarriffs - that's just because of anti-Americanism.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, well I didn't say "the US is only pro-globalisation when it suits them"; I said "everyone... etc"

I don't condone the destruction of property, or even the destruction of bad food.

However, I think you're missing the mark in putting it down to anti-Americanism. If that was the case, why do so many people in Europe buy into American products, films, music, etc?

Admittedly, some people are anti-American, but not all anti-globalisation protesters are. The issue would be economic imperialism, and McDonald's as a symbol of that. Again, most of these are American because Americans are the most prominent and successful at exporting their culture around the world (not entirely, as I said above, against the wishes of the world)

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It seems like the only real place where people are really against globilisation is in Europe. It seems like that is more directed against the US anyway.

Ever hear of "Seattle Man"?

If by globalisation you mean the dropping of barriers to the free flow of goods, services and ideas throughout the world, I'd say that the Bush steel tariffs and the US agricultural subsidies are as good an example as the equally crazy EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Basically "globalisation" is a great idea but has been run as a scam where the developed nations use their economic muscle to screw over the rest of the world. The collapse of the Doha round of talks was a sign that the Lesser Developed Countries weren't going to take it anymore.

It's no coincidence that the highest trade barriers (whether tariffs, quotas, or subsidies to domestic producers) are in textiles and agricultural products- exactly where the LDCs have competitive advantage- while the advanced countries demand liberalisation in areas like financial services.

But as long as the political systems are set up to give advantages to conservative rural areas this will continue.

In Europe 50% of the EU budget goes to the less than 5% of the population engaged in farming.

In Japan the ruling LDP is heavily dependent on votes from underpopulated but overrepresented farming districts.

And the US Senate and electoral college strongly overweights rural and underdeveloped areas dependent on agriculture and textiles.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Ever hear of "Seattle Man"?

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"

And the US Senate and electoral college strongly overweights rural and underdeveloped areas dependent on agriculture and textiles.

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.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
To get back to the original question, I think this may be to do with where people perceive the real threats to their way of life.

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 then?

It wouldn't surprise me if it made a comeback. Notably, Putin is reverting to Stalinist ways in Russia at the moment, and not without popular support (some people probably feel they were better off under a state-run monopoly than they are under a mafia-run one).

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?