XPost: alt.politics.libertarian, alt.politics, alt.politics.socialism   
   From: roger4911@yahoo.com   
      
   On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:19:02 -0500, John Galt wrote:   
      
      
   > WWII was a fight between capitalism and socialism. Hitler was the   
   > spearhead of capitalism, heavily supported by rich people, bankers,   
   > rich industrialists in western europe, britain and USA.   
   > Look up "hitler wall street henry ford" on the web and read about what   
   > really happened and how hitler came to power to crush socialism,   
   > social democracy, labor unions and communism. And the main target was   
   > of course Soviet Union.   
   >   
   > Doesn't matter. The "thread" discussion was about the almost infinite   
   > capability of Europeans for barbarism.   
      
   During the middle ages, yes, when the church had almost supreme power.   
   Fortunately, we have developed quite a bit since then.   
      
   > The fact that you have it   
   > rationalized down to a class struggle, however, tenuous, does not justify   
   > barbarism.   
      
   War is barbarism, yes, but who started it?   
   The pope wrote an encyclica in 1891 where he expressed his worries about   
   the class struggle, the labor unions, socialism, secularism, and suggested   
   another solution called corporatism.   
   Mussolini later changed that name to fascism. (Read the article about   
   Fascism on wikipedia)   
      
   The capitalists in USA, western europe and britain, and the concervative   
   parties and the church supported fascism and wanted it to crush the labor   
   movement, the socialists, the communists.   
   They started with Spain, and won that war, in spite of worker's support   
   from all over the world. The german and italian war machines were used to   
   crush the spanish worker's movement.   
      
   The Hitler, stupidly, tried to get Britain on his side before he started   
   the attack on Soviet Union. Historians have said that this was one of his   
   biggest mistakes. He could have ignored the war declarations from Britain   
   and France when he took half of Poland, and he could have started the war   
   against Soviet immediately. The western powers would just have sat idle   
   while he crushed Soviet.   
      
   Luckily for us he was not the strategic genius he thought he was.   
   The Soviet people lost 25 million soldiers and civilians, but they managed   
   to stop this attack, and that allowed the worker's unions and social   
   democrats in Europe to continue to build up a civilized society for 50   
   years more after the war.   
      
   The western european capitalists were happy that we did at least not become   
   bolsjevik socialists, so they accepted the social democrat rule in western   
   europe. With the communist block in eastern europe as a backup support the   
   social democrats in europe could build up a  welfare society where the   
   democracy ruled over the big money.   
      
   Then came the Thatcher-Reagan period. The era of military invasions was   
   over, USA and Soviet started reducing their arsenals.   
   Instead an economic war started, the free-market struggle for investment   
   capital and the threat against small countries from big capitalists who   
   speculated against the currency of the country.   
      
   This forced small countries like my own to join bigger unions, which the   
   capitalists could not destroy economically. EU became a major player in the   
   world. Soviet and China needed to open up and attract foreign investment   
   capital, and they managed to create support for that move from their own   
   citizens.   
      
   A  little economic crisis here and a lack of bread there, etc..   
      
      
   >> In short, he did not allow the americans to take over his country.   
      
   > I'll come to my own conclusions, thank you -- to "conclude" for other people   
   > is intellectual dishonesty. You may personally decide, if you wish, that my   
   > own conclusions are the result of American partisanship, but you do so at   
   > the risk of honest debate,   
      
   Are you threatening me with "an honest debate"? Ha Ha.   
   What does that mean?   
   Personally I have never been dishonest in a debate and I see no reason why.   
      
   >> The american controlled "orange revolutions" did not succeed in China   
   >> either, and are starting to lose influence in other eastern europe   
   >> countries too.   
      
   > You and I would likely agree that the American tendency for hegemonic   
   > relationships is unseemly. However, it does not logically follow that the   
   > relative failure or success in such endeavors drives propaganda.   
      
   Doesn't it? And does not the propaganda from the big news agencies owned by   
   western powers drive the "orange revolutions"?   
      
   > Stalin was the leader of eastern Europe (the Soviet Union).   
   > He did his best to defend eastern europe against the capitalist   
   > attack, spearheaded by the capitalist puppet Hitler.   
   >   
   > Yes, that was very good for the domestic vodka industry. I am not aware of   
   > any other industry that developed to capitalistic standards under his   
   > regime.   
   >   
   > Can I assume that you do not consider standard of living to be relevant when   
   > judging competing economic systems?   
      
   When the gangsters ruled Chicago in the 30ies they had a very high living   
   standard, they drank champagne and their women had expensive mink stolas,   
   they had the most expensive cars in the world.   
      
   Do you suggest that the standard of living of an elite group proves that   
   their ruling system is very good?   
      
   The americans have robbed the world of valuable resources for a hundred   
   years, using the most horrible methods.   
   Just one example is how they took over Chile and put their puppet Pinochet   
   in power to get cheap copper and other minerals.   
      
   Does the standard of living in USA, caused by such gangster methods,   
   justify their political and economical system and make it into an ideal for   
   the world to follow?   
      
   There are a few people in Sweden, and in Cuba, who wants to move to USA,   
   attracted by the high standard of living, and they don't give a damn about   
   how that living standard was achieved. Just like the girls who wanted to be   
   with Al Capone and Dillinger to live a luxurious life.   
      
   A constant stream of tankers and container ships are moving 40% of the   
   world's resources to USA, to allow the elite groups in USA to live in   
   luxury.   
      
   The rest of the world will not tolerate this situation for much longer.   
   Within a few decades those tankers and container ships will stop moving all   
   those resources to USA, and we will build a more fair world, with more   
   material equality all over the world.   
      
      
   --   
   Roger J.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)