NationStates Jolt Archive

In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination. Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias. Rooting it out may determine whether Europe’s economies prosper or continue to be left behind.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/164-theil-sidebar.jpg

Millions of children are being raised on prejudice and disinformation. Educated in schools that teach a skewed ideology, they are exposed to a dogma that runs counter to core beliefs shared by many other Western countries. They study from textbooks filled with a doctrine of dissent, which they learn to recite as they prepare to attend many of the better universities in the world. Extracting these children from the jaws of bias could mean the difference between world prosperity and menacing global rifts. And doing so will not be easy. But not because these children are found in the madrasas of Pakistan or the state-controlled schools of Saudi Arabia. They are not. Rather, they live in two of the world’s great democracies—France and Germany.

What a country teaches its young people reflects its bedrock national beliefs. Schools hand down a society’s historical narrative to the next generation. There has been a great deal of debate over the ways in which this historical ideology is passed on—over Japanese textbooks that downplay the Nanjing Massacre, Palestinian textbooks that feature maps without Israel, and new Russian guidelines that require teachers to portray Stalinism more favorably. Yet there has been almost no analysis of how countries teach economics, even though the subject is equally crucial in shaping the collective identity that drives foreign and domestic policies.

Just as schools teach a historical narrative, they also pass on “truths” about capitalism, the welfare state, and other economic principles that a society considers self-evident. In both France and Germany, for instance, schools have helped ingrain a serious aversion to capitalism. In one 2005 poll, just 36 percent of French citizens said they supported the free-enterprise system, the only one of 22 countries polled that showed minority support for this cornerstone of global commerce. In Germany, meanwhile, support for socialist ideals is running at all-time highs—47 percent in 2007 versus 36 percent in 1991.
It’s tempting to dismiss these attitudes as being little more than punch lines to cocktail party jokes. But their impact is sadly and seriously self-destructive. In Germany, unemployment is finally falling after years at Depression-era levels, thanks in no small part to welfare reforms that in 2005 pressured Germans on the public dole to take up jobs. Yet there is near consensus among Germans that, despite this happy outcome, tinkering with the welfare state went far beyond what is permissible. Chancellor Angela Merkel, once heralded as Germany’s own Margaret Thatcher, has all but abandoned her plans to continue free-market reforms. She has instead imposed a new “rich people tax,” has tightened labor-market rules, and has promised renewed efforts to “regulate” globalization. Meanwhile, two in three Germans say they support at least some of the voodoo-economic, roll-back-the-reforms platform of a noisy new antiglobalization political party called Die Linke (The Left), founded by former East German communists and Western left-wing populists.

Many of these popular attitudes can be traced to state-mandated curricula in schools. It is there that economic lessons are taught that diverge substantially from the market-based principles on which the Western model is based. The phenomenon may hardly be unique to Europe, but in few places is it more obvious than in France and Germany. A biased view of economics feeds into many of the world’s most vexing problems, from the growth of populism to the global rise of anti-American, anti-capitalist attitudes.
Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems, and do you beleive this is ok and helpfull to these countries' soceities?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095

People being taught that free market capitalism doesn't work for everyone?

Oh shit.

Suck it up, neo-liberals.

In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination. Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias. Rooting it out may determine whether Europe’s economies prosper or continue to be left behind.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/164-theil-sidebar.jpg


Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems, and do you beleive this is ok and helpfull to these countries' soceities?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095

It'll probably be harmful to them in the long run, but oh well. It doesn't affect me. Except in a peripheral sort of way.

Ich will eure Phantasie. Ich will eure Energie. Ich will...etwas...etwas... Ich hab' die Lied vergessen.

Oh...that's terrible.
...
I just can't bring myself to care about a bunch of spoiled snobs like that. I just can't.

It'll probably be harmful to them in the long run, but oh well. It doesn't affect me. Except in a peripheral sort of way.
"It doesn't affect me" is a REALLY bad way of looking at global political issues. Plus, as globalization continues, the worlds problems become our own.

Ich will eure Phantasie. Ich will eure Energie. Ich will...etwas...etwas... Ich hab' die Lied vergessen.
"Das" Lied. Ich liebe dieses Lied. Ich hoer's immer wenn ich traniere oder wenn ich im Bett mit einer Frau bin...:p

Voll geil daß du es kennst. Bist Amerikaner?

Oh no, the europeans are not embracing free market capitalism.

Quick, summon the reanimated corpse of Adam Smith, before it's too late!

People being taught that free market capitalism doesn't work for everyone?
Oh pipe down. If you would have read my article, you would have seen this:
In Germany, unemployment is finally falling after years at Depression-era levels, thanks in no small part to welfare reforms that in 2005 pressured Germans on the public dole to take up jobs.

Yet the German school system seems to be still brainwashing the children that free-market policies are bad for the country...why?

This is rather depressing. Just why do people hate capitalism so much?

So--SHOCK AND HORROR--it seems as if we should mix the two systems in the right way, and that neither side has it exactly right yet.
Naturally.....it's rare that people argue total socialism or total Capitalism and I know I'm not...but the problem here is that the schools are NOT teaching the good things of free-market Capitalism but simply showing the bad things about it and globalization and the good things about socialism and protectionism, that is what the article is getting at...the extreme BIAS.

Oh no, the europeans are not embracing free market capitalism.

Quick, summon the reanimated corpse of Adam Smith, before it's too late!

I knew people were going to react like this, and that the other side would go "Why do people hate capitalism?"

Instead of looking at this with our ideology, let's examine this with our brains, shall we?

For example, that note about only two cents of the forty cents going to the farmers? That is a bad thing. That's a very bad thing in fact, and casts a bad light on elements of capitalism.

But then there's the fact about the unemployment levels in Germany going down due to the welfare reforms, which casts a bad light upon socialism.

So--SHOCK AND HORROR--it seems as if we should mix the two systems in the right way, and that neither side has it exactly right yet.

Meanwhile, two in three Germans say they support at least some of the voodoo-economic, roll-back-the-reforms platform of a noisy new antiglobalization political party called Die Linke (The Left), founded by former East German communists and Western left-wing populists.

That line was just overdone. I mean, I was cruisin' along the article and all of a sudden-BAM! Voodoo? the heck?

The article itself also has some bias in it...but I would not be too surprised by this, given that our own school systems do the same thing, only vice versa, teaching only the good about capitalism and bad about socialism.

In other words, both educational systems are being manipulated by those in power for political gain.

The what about socialism?

This is rather depressing. Just why do people hate capitalism so much?

Because it is at the root of all evil.

But then there's the fact about the unemployment levels in Germany going down due to the welfare reforms, which casts a bad light upon socialism.

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. The fact that welfare reforms helped reduce unemployment does not, in any way, cast a bad light on socialism. It casts a bad light on free market capitalism.

Why? Because no advocate of welfare, or, at least, no intelligent advocate of socialism, would advocate welfare without some system to tie weflare receipt with legitimate efforts to find employment. Nobody advocates indefinite welfare regardless of efforts to find a job, nobody. That's not a socialist position in the slightest. If anything this casts a bad light on badly implimented social welfare systems, but the fact that once they were reformed in a logical way, the society improved, shows that it can be a very good thing.

Social welfare has always been about providing a safety net for those who need it, not everybody who wants it. The fact that a smart, sensible system of social welfare helped improve germany's situation does, in fact, show very badly for free market capitalism, for in pure free market capitalism, there's no such thing as social welfare at all

People being taught that free market capitalism doesn't work for everyone?

Oh shit.

Suck it up, neo-liberals.

this ^

Naturally.....it's rare that people argue total socialism or total Capitalism and I know I'm not...but the problem here is that the schools are NOT teaching the good things of free-market Capitalism but simply showing the bad things about it and globalization and the good things about socialism and protectionism, that is what the article is getting at...the extreme BIAS.

Hmm… seems unlikely that a 'German Globalization Workbook' would consist entirely of statements like those above. Probably that was just a quotation somewhere within the text. We'd have to see the actual workbooks and textbooks – not arbitrary excerpts – to be free of bias, wouldn't we? ;)

Naturally.....it's rare that people argue total socialism or total Capitalism and I know I'm not...but the problem here is that the schools are NOT teaching the good things of free-market Capitalism but simply showing the bad things about it and globalization and the good things about socialism and protectionism, that is what the article is getting at...the extreme BIAS.

The article itself also has some bias in it...but I would not be too surprised by this, given that our own school systems do the same thing, only vice versa, teaching only the good about capitalism and bad about socialism.

In other words, both educational systems are being manipulated by those in power for political gain.

The article itself also has some bias in it...but I would not be too surprised by this, given that our own school systems do the same thing, only vice versa, teaching only the good about capitalism and bad about socialism.

In other words, both educational systems are being manipulated by those in power for political gain.
Well when I took Econ in high school is was biased towards Capitalism, but I'd say that is because it wanted (and did) to give us an understanding of the global economy and the economic systems in place in Western countries....both of which are all Capitalist, just to different degrees. The global economy is capitalist.

We did spend time on command economies, but simply not as much because they were generally irrelevant when discussing the world economy and the economics of the West....

If we really wanted ot "examine this with our brains" we'd realize that not knowing the relative cost of growing the wheat, how much wheat it takes, how much wheat a farmer can produce, and the ocst of the other materials, processes, fuel, machines, wages and time that go into making that roll, we have no idea if a payment for wheat of 5% of the retail price of the finished product is in any way properly relative.

It's made to stir some emotions of "but bread is made mostly of wheat but the people who provide the thing that makes the majority of the roll makes a tiny minority of the profits!" and that may, in fact, be true, but without any actual information, one can't make a determination as to whether it's a fair and adequate price one way or the other.

Not to mention it only said what the farmer received for the wheat, not say, labor or shipment which he could certainly have had a part in.

So--SHOCK AND HORROR--it seems as if we should mix the two systems in the right way, and that neither side has it exactly right yet.

This is the right answer, right here. Combine the best aspects of both systems.

"It doesn't affect me" is a REALLY bad way of looking at global political issues. Plus, as globalization continues, the worlds problems become our own.

True dat, but there are far more impending global issues than the Europeans' outlook on capitalism. This isn't a shocking new development in European society, but rather an indication of the way Europe's been for the past 30+ years. Honestly, the Euro may be strong now, but I think that their impending population crisis coupled with their adversion to capitalism/economic freedom/ hard work will result in a serious crisis. But that's just the opinion of a fiscal conservative.


"Das" Lied. Ich liebe dieses Lied. Ich hoer's immer wenn ich traniere oder wenn ich im Bett mit einer Frau bin...:p

Voll geil daß du es kennst. Bist Amerikaner?

JA! Ich liebe Rammsteins Lieder, besonders Sonne und Rosenrot. Und ja, bin ich Amerikaner (ich hab' 4 jahren Deutsch genommt). Bist du Deutsch??? (Und es tut mir leid für mein Grammatik, es ist nicht so stark)

let's examine this with our brains, shall we?

For example, that note about only two cents of the forty cents going to the farmers? That is a bad thing. That's a very bad thing in fact, and casts a bad light on elements of capitalism.

If we really wanted ot "examine this with our brains" we'd realize that not knowing the relative cost of growing the wheat, how much wheat it takes, how much wheat a farmer can produce, and the ocst of the other materials, processes, fuel, machines, wages and time that go into making that roll, we have no idea if a payment for wheat of 5% of the retail price of the finished product is in any way properly relative.

It's made to stir some emotions of "but bread is made mostly of wheat but the people who provide the thing that makes the majority of the roll makes a tiny minority of the profits!" and that may, in fact, be true, but without any actual information, one can't make a determination as to whether it's a fair and adequate price one way or the other.

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. The fact that welfare reforms helped reduce unemployment does not, in any way, cast a bad light on socialism. It casts a bad light on free market capitalism.

Why? Because no advocate of welfare, or, at least, no intelligent advocate of socialism, would advocate welfare without some system to tie weflare receipt with legitimate efforts to find employment. Nobody advocates indefinite welfare regardless of efforts to find a job, nobody. That's not a socialist position in the slightest. If anything this casts a bad light on badly implimented social welfare systems, but the fact that once they were reformed in a logical way, the society improved, shows that it can be a very good thing.

Social welfare has always been about providing a safety net for those who need it, not everybody who wants it. The fact that a smart, sensible system of social welfare helped improve germany's situation does, in fact, show very badly for free market capitalism, for in pure free market capitalism, there's no such thing as social welfare at all

...You're right. I feel ashamed for having misinterpreted that. Clearly I need to refresh my understanding of economics before I go mouthing off like a moron.

In Germany, unemployment is finally falling after years at Depression-era levels, thanks in no small part to welfare reforms that in 2005 pressured Germans on the public dole to take up jobs.

I can just see the headlines in my mind's eye.

"Increasing Number of Formerly Unemployed People With Jobs Has Decreased Unemployment, Analysts Say."

Puts it on par with "War Dims Hope For Peace", and says nothing about any political ideology that is, unless you consider stupidity a political ideology.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point of this post, and am surprised that it was not quickly overwhelmed with people objecting with the various OMG Capitalism sux ftl! j00 fascist. Perhaps my cynicism for NSG is not entirely warranted.

I can just see the headlines in my mind's eye.

"Increasing Number of Formerly Unemployed People With Jobs Has Decreased Unemployment, Analysts Say."

Puts it on par with "War Dims Hope For Peace", and says nothing about any political ideology that is, unless you consider stupidity a political ideology.

Stupidity absolutely is a political ideology.

It's disappointing and backward, but Europe will come around eventually. They'll have to, anyway. :p

Maybe that's because nothing in this thread suggests that europe is rejecting capitalism en masse but rather rejects a totally "free market" approach to capitalism, and prefers a system that's a combination of capitalist and socialist ideologies, despite the OPs...misguided interpretation that "omg europe is becoming communist!"

But is it right to teach that? Why not just present the kids with the unbiased historical facts and economic models and let them decide for themselves?

I agree wholeheartedly with the point of this post, and am surprised that it was not quickly overwhelmed with people objecting with the various OMG Capitalism sux ftl! j00 fascist. Perhaps my cynicism for NSG is not entirely warranted.

Maybe that's because nothing in this thread suggests that europe is rejecting capitalism en masse but rather rejects a totally "free market" approach to capitalism, and prefers a system that's a combination of capitalist and socialist ideologies, despite the OPs...misguided interpretation that "omg europe is becoming communist!"

Remember kiddies, it's only extremist if the opposing perspective does it!


Free Market Capitalism leads to little more than a dozen greed-filled men and a ravaged world. Not that I say socialism is better, but let's face the big, fat, ugly truth. If it is allowed with no restrictions or regulations in place, pure capitalism will wipe out the world's habitability.

Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems, and do you beleive this is ok and helpfull to these countries' soceities?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095

I'm not sure this is harmful to the countries in the same way teaching people it's good to be a terrorist is harmful, but misinformation never helps. Education always seems to be a few steps behind reality, and this is just another example.

But then there's the fact about the unemployment levels in Germany going down due to the welfare reforms, which casts a bad light upon socialism.

socialism = the german welfare state?

socialism = the german welfare state?

I think the point was that when Germany started to drop its more socialistic policies, the unemployment rate went down.

no intelligent advocate of socialism, would advocate welfare without some system to tie weflare receipt with legitimate efforts to find employment. Nobody advocates indefinite welfare regardless of efforts to find a job, nobody.

lots of people have. me, for instance, taking off of a longstanding argument made in communist circles about freedom. betrand russell did as well, actually, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me of his lack of intelligence.

as a matter of fact, so have some of the american-style libertarians, in their more cogent moments - milton friedman springs to mind.

I think the point was that when Germany started to drop its more socialistic policies, the unemployment rate went down.

of course, the capitalist welfare state isn't actually socialism...

Ah, another TAI post. I'll respond to the bolded parts he thinks are most important.

Japanese textbooks that downplay the Nanjing Massacre, Palestinian textbooks that feature maps without Israel, and new Russian guidelines that require teachers to portray Stalinism more favorably.

Not a single one of these examples applies to "Europe's philosophy of failure." Or, for that matter, to Europe at all. But they were apparently highlighted to show that Palestinians, Japanese and Russians also have a Philosophy of Failure...

In both France and Germany, for instance, schools have helped ingrain a serious aversion to capitalism. In one 2005 poll, just 36 percent of French citizens said they supported the free-enterprise system, the only one of 22 countries polled that showed minority support for this cornerstone of global commerce. In Germany, meanwhile, support for socialist ideals is running at all-time highs—47 percent in 2007 versus 36 percent in 1991.

These statistics do not show a direct correlation between school "ingraining" and European socialism.

I will note that Europe is almost entirely socialist, by American standards, and has been for years.

Furthermore, however - and I am a capitalist - pointing out a pro-socialist economic bias does not support the "philosophy of failure" thesis.

In Germany, unemployment is finally falling after years at Depression-era levels, thanks in no small part to welfare reforms that in 2005 pressured Germans on the public dole to take up jobs. Yet there is near consensus among Germans that, despite this happy outcome, tinkering with the welfare state went far beyond what is permissible. Chancellor Angela Merkel, once heralded as Germany’s own Margaret Thatcher, has all but abandoned her plans to continue free-market reforms. She has instead imposed a new “rich people tax,” has tightened labor-market rules, and has promised renewed efforts to “regulate” globalization. Meanwhile, two in three Germans say they support at least some of the voodoo-economic, roll-back-the-reforms platform of a noisy new antiglobalization political party called Die Linke (The Left), founded by former East German communists and Western left-wing populists.

Mmm. So, Europe has politicians. They announce policy changes. To get elected.

....

Wait, so where is the "Philosophy of Failure?" Is the mere fact that there are socialist policies in Europe all that I am supposed to hold as indicator of said 'philosophy of failure?'

If so, fail.

A biased view of economics feeds into many of the world’s most vexing problems, from the growth of populism to the global rise of anti-American, anti-capitalist attitudes.

"capitalist" is just as biased as "anti-capitalist." Somehow though, TAI, I don't think you would be whining if it was a capitalist bias.

And I don't suppose it's occurred to you or this author that perhaps the rise of "anti-American attitudes" has to do with the extremely negative policies and problems of the US government... and not some school indoctrination of anti-capitalism.

Particularly since the US is basically a socialist country anyway. If you're going to sing the song of pure capitalism, do so, but don't try and tell me that the US is a baritone in the choir anymore. It ain't.

In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination. Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias. Rooting it out may determine whether Europe’s economies prosper or continue to be left behind.

Ah, yes. Raising children on a "diet of prejudice and bias."

Like being taught that Muslims, immigrants, and leftists are savage, unhealthy, and immoral.

You don't give a shit about prejudice - you preach it - and you couldn't care less about bias - you have it. Your complaints have no credibility.

[quote]Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems

I believe every teacher and book has a bias. I don't believe in the "Philosophy of Failure" somehow nationalized and brainwashing "anti-Americanism" through anti-capitalism in Europe.

This thread has a Philosophy of Failure.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,528002,00.html
Europe, The Comeback Continent
By Paul Krugman

The next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe's economy is doing O.K.

Other than that, I liked this article. I mean, I was never taught using a textbook like the ones described, but I usually get terribly frustrated by the discourse in the German media and German-language fora when it comes to capitalism. It's incredibly uninformed and often comes down to a blind recital of that word I've come to hate: "neoliberal". No one's ever been able to explain to me exactly what they mean when they use it, but they tend to get very upset when I ask.

GT, a winner is you

*applaudes*

But capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, that's the truth, might as well spread the truth.

Our Apartheid friend is just angry that anti-communism isn't indoctrinated into European children like it is dumb Americans.

Free Market Capitalism leads to little more than a dozen greed-filled men and a ravaged world. Not that I say socialism is better, but let's face the big, fat, ugly truth. If it is allowed with no restrictions or regulations in place, pure capitalism will wipe out the world's habitability.
How? Look, I'll admit there are some legitimate arguments for debating the merits of socialism. The environment is not one of them.

If you want to argue against pure capitalism for being callous, fostering or driving greed, because you think money is the root of all evil or something else then that's fine. Those arguments can be debated.

Capitalism does not deforest because every time you buy lumber you order new trees to be planted. There is no shortage of sand for glass. It's actually profitable to recycle metal than mine and smelt ore. GE crops use less land for the same yeilds, require fewer pesticides, and are more resistant to disease.

If you want to argue for socialism, go ahead. Argue in favor of it on the grounds that it seeks to help the poor or because you think it will make society more equal or something like that, but don't try to tell me that it will save the environment because China and the former Soviet Union were not paragons of virtue on environmental matters.

If you want to argue for socialism, go ahead. Argue in favor of it on the grounds that it seeks to help the poor or because you think it will make society more equal or something like that, but don't try to tell me that it will save the environment because China and the former Soviet Union were not paragons of virtue on environmental matters.

Capitalism has never destroyed an ocean (Aral Sea), poisoned a sizable chunk of an entire continent (Chernobyl), or created the most polluted cities on Earth (Norilsk, Linfen, Dzerzinsk) that have been responsible for untold deaths and contamination of nature on a scale that is hard to find anywhere else in the world.

The worst part is, a CPE could in fact preserve the environment, but they were so obsessed with extensive growth that it was completely forgotten.

Indri I agree, environmentalism is a reactionary notion created mostly by degenerate lumpenproletariat elements, socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, and the proletariat is the modern industrial working class, ie heavy industry.

Indri I agree, environmentalism is a reactionary notion created mostly by degenerate lumpenproletariat elements, socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, and the proletariat is the modern industrial working class, ie heavy industry.

*facepalm*

When your "revolutionary dictatorship (over) the proletariat" has salted the earth, poisoned the water and scorched the skies, maybe then you'll realize that ecology is a transclass issue that is no less important to abstraction of "the proletariat" which you worship than it is to "degenerate lumpen elements".

When your "revolutionary dictatorship (over) the proletariat" has salted the earth, poisoned the water and scorched the skies, maybe then you'll realize that ecology is a transclass issue that is no less important to abstraction of "the proletariat" which you worship than it is to "degenerate lumpen elements".

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/12/world/12norilsk.600.jpg

This is EA's "revolutionary dictatorship" in action...damn it, if there is one thing that goes above class and above economics, it's the need to keep a functioning biosphere in place, both for our own future survival as well as for our quality of life. Threatening our own extinction because of some strange fetish for increasing raw material production is both economically and socially unsound; I think we can all agree some amount of growth is necessary to avoid a zero-sum situation, but that's a hell of a lot different from the raw, maddened pursuit of gross material production.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/12/world/12norilsk.600.jpg

What's wrong with that? It's human progress and harnessing the full power of the productive forces of labor. I am against these crazies greenies who want to 'take us back to the forest age.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/12/world/12norilsk.600.jpg

This is EA's "revolutionary dictatorship" in action...damn it, if there is one thing that goes above class and above economics, it's the need to keep a functioning biosphere in place, both for our own future survival as well as for our quality of life. Threatening our own extinction because of some strange fetish for increasing raw material production is both economically and socially unsound; I think we can all agree some amount of growth is necessary to avoid a zero-sum situation, but that's a hell of a lot different from the raw, maddened pursuit of gross material production.

Definitely. What I can't stand is that he's so sure of himself, espescially when it comes to dehumanizing his "enemies" and rejecting anything that is not hardcore Stalinism.

Definitely. What I can't stand is that he's so sure of himself, espescially when it comes to dehumanizing his "enemies" and rejecting anything that is not hardcore Stalinism.

With TAI, they're like opposite sides of a coin.

What's wrong with that? It's human progress and harnessing the full power of the productive forces of labor. I am against these crazies greenies who want to 'take us back to the forest age.

Come back after you've inhaled 800 atmospheres of carbon monoxide, and tell us how wonderful productive forces of labor is. If you don't die first. But you won't do that will you? Oh no. You can't be bothered to live in the filthy, poisoned world you want to create, but you'll certainly expound it's vapor like benefits. Mr Stalinism-is-great-kill-the-bourgeois-but-I'll-support-capitalism-by-sinking-money-into-unneeded-luxury-goods-and -it-won't-be-bourgeois-because-I-rail-against-it.

With TAI, they're like opposite sides of a coin.

They'd make a cute couple. :p

-OP snip-
That tickles.

Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems, and do you beleive this is ok and helpfull to these countries' soceities?


They aren't averse to capitalism per se, just the American 'shaft thy neighbour and the divil take the hindmost' version. Which is good. More power to them.

[B][SIZE="3"]In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination.

Oho, the usual rant about "aieee!!! the teachers are all kommiez!!! the EU is CCCP!!!"...
pitiful, expecially when you see that the "terrible communists ruling the minds of the europeans" actually managed to create a more successful and competitive economy (see CIA world factbook for sheer numeric reference, wtf) than the so called "liberist" USA.

...and, to boot, you suggest (between the lines) that there should be a liberist indoctrination in schools because it's for the "good of the country".

We in Europe prefer to care for the "good of the individuals" now - the "good of the country" has already been used by some nice guys like Mussolini etc, and we've seen what it leads to. Also, our teachers, independently from their personal political views, which of course they're perfectly and fully entitled to, teach us another thing, above everything else: critical thinking. It's the only way to see through voluntary indoctrination and involuntary biases.

Europe is not anti-capitalist at all. It might be less capitalist than America but it seriously looks like a good 50 years at the very least before the current economic system. The fact that the Europeans asked in the OP said they preferred socialism does not necessarily indicate schools ingraining anything. They might have actually decided that it's a good idea based on available facts, you never know.

What I really don't like when people discuss economics is that they forget that there are actually economic systems besides capitalism and socialism even though neither of them were practised before 300 years ago, at least in their modern forms.
I can just see the headlines in my mind's eye.

"Increasing Number of Formerly Unemployed People With Jobs Has Decreased Unemployment, Analysts Say."
Puts it on par with "War Dims Hope For Peace", and says nothing about any political ideology that is, unless you consider stupidity a political ideology.That wouldn't be a case of stupidity but stating the obvious. The OP is more like stupidity.

Particularly since the US is basically a socialist country anyway. If you're going to sing the song of pure capitalism, do so, but don't try and tell me that the US is a baritone in the choir anymore. It ain't.What makes you say that?


Capitalism does not deforest because every time you buy lumber you order new trees to be planted.
That would be the sensible thing but no, most of the time that doesn't happen.

There is no shortage of sand for glass.

A rare example of a natural resource which is not being depleted, even including most of the resources which are theoretically renewable but which people overuse so they still end up severely depleted.

It's actually profitable to recycle metal than mine and smelt ore. GE crops use less land for the same yeilds, require fewer pesticides, and are more resistant to disease.
[/QUOTE]The fact that people use artificial fertilisers in the first place is cause for concern.

If you want to argue for socialism, go ahead. Argue in favor of it on the grounds that it seeks to help the poor or because you think it will make society more equal or something like that, but don't try to tell me that it will save the environment because China and the former Soviet Union were not paragons of virtue on environmental matters.
I wouldn't say that China or the Soviet Union are or were any better but the main cause of China's destruction of its environment is its economic development and its aim to be like Western countries. Why the fuck I don't get.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/12/world/12norilsk.600.jpg

This is EA's "revolutionary dictatorship" in action...damn it, if there is one thing that goes above class and above economics, it's the need to keep a functioning biosphere in place, both for our own future survival as well as for our quality of life. Threatening our own extinction because of some strange fetish for increasing raw material production is both economically and socially unsound; I think we can all agree some amount of growth is necessary to avoid a zero-sum situation, but that's a hell of a lot different from the raw, maddened pursuit of gross material production.I agree with the first bit but economic growth is unnecessary.

What's wrong with that? It's human progress and harnessing the full power of the productive forces of labor. I am against these crazies greenies who want to 'take us back to the forest age.

?

Burn the trees, burn them all!

snip picture

Woah, TAI is against something which claims to be preserving French culture?

In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination. Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias. Rooting it out may determine whether Europe’s economies prosper or continue to be left behind.
Blah, blah, big letters, blah, blah. Seriously, your article jumps to conclusions based on minimal data. For instance, the 2005 reforms are the reason why so many people are becoming employed now, not why they were unemployed.


Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems, and do you beleive this is ok and helpfull to these countries' soceities?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095As someone educated in one of these countries, no.

In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination. Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias. Rooting it out may determine whether Europe’s economies prosper or continue to be left behind.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/164-theil-sidebar.jpg


Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems, and do you beleive this is ok and helpfull to these countries' soceities?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095

Depends what you call bias. Showing the downsides as well as the upsides?
I've been through school in Germany, and while I don't agree with completely unrestrained capitalism, I don't want the social elements dominating the market either. I'd opt for a healthy balance...

Oh pipe down. If you would have read my article, you would have seen this:
In Germany, unemployment is finally falling after years at Depression-era levels, thanks in no small part to welfare reforms that in 2005 pressured Germans on the public dole to take up jobs.

Yet the German school system seems to be still brainwashing the children that free-market policies are bad for the country...why?

Because they were what caused the massive unemployment levels durnig the Kohl-years (CDU/CSU, conservative right).
Germany has been fighting unemployment since the late 70s on a wide front : both qualified and unqualified jobs were "rationalised" once the labour laws were relaxed.

firstly, socialism =/= failure.

secondly, this is another country teaching its kids in the way it sees fit. in the US, the amount of anti-socialist indoctrination and bias is astounding to me. i fail to see the big deal.

thirdly, labour reforms and freeing up the labour market is a good way to increase employment. its one of the few things Thatcher did alright in this country imho. so there's little surprise that Merkel's reforms have created that outcome, if, indeed, the issue as clear-cut as that.

Oh no, the europeans are not embracing free market capitalism.

Quick, summon the reanimated corpse of Adam Smith, before it's too late!

And the moment when the evil zombie that everyone thought they had killed comes back to life will be when he points out that his own theory on capitalism states that it is the function of government to break up large economic interests when they become powerful enough to exert control over the force of competition in the market place.

"AAAHHH! Is no place safe from ultra liberal European saneness?"

Actually, in the US education system if any children shows pro-socialist opinions in essays they are treated like holocaust deniers by the teachers.

lots of people have. me, for instance, taking off of a longstanding argument made in communist circles about freedom. betrand russell did as well, actually, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me of his lack of intelligence.

as a matter of fact, so have some of the american-style libertarians, in their more cogent moments - milton friedman springs to mind.Technically speaking, though, support for the unemployed in a communist community isn't quite the same thing as welfare in a capitalist state.

firstly, socialism =/= failure.

secondly, this is another country teaching its kids in the way it sees fit. in the US, the amount of anti-socialist indoctrination and bias is astounding to me. i fail to see the big deal.

thirdly, labour reforms and freeing up the labour market is a good way to increase employment. its one of the few things Thatcher did alright in this country imho. so there's little surprise that Merkel's reforms have created that outcome, if, indeed, the issue as clear-cut as that.

Not sure it is ;)
I've been to Germany in November, and the overall climate hasn't improved by much. The people who were unemployed when I left still were unemployed, the people who have jobs are still worried they'll lose them, and the people leaving university are considering emmigration...
I now suspect the Merkel government of fixing the statistics to make them look better.

Technically speaking, though, support for the unemployed in a communist community isn't quite the same thing as welfare in a capitalist state.

Nope. And cutting welfare doesn't automatically improve the economy, either. ;)

Remember kiddies, it's only extremist if the opposing perspective does it!


Free Market Capitalism leads to little more than a dozen greed-filled men and a ravaged world. Not that I say socialism is better, but let's face the big, fat, ugly truth. If it is allowed with no restrictions or regulations in place, pure capitalism will wipe out the world's habitability.


There is some trickling down in unrestrained free market capitalism, but the main direction of the trickling going on is up.

May one also remind a few of our hardcore "greed is good" ideologists that there is not one single socialist country left in Europe, only market economies, although most of them with some kind of conscience left.

Naturally.....it's rare that people argue total socialism or total Capitalism and I know I'm not...

I'd go further than that. I doubt there has ever been a 'pure' socialist or capitalist economy, and I doubt whether anybody with an understanding of economics would seriously argue that either extreme is practical or desirable.


but the problem here is that the schools are NOT teaching the good things of free-market Capitalism but simply showing the bad things about it and globalization and the good things about socialism and protectionism, that is what the article is getting at...the extreme BIAS.

Those three unattributed quotes in the picture you posted are 1) very limited evidence of bias, and 2) deeply suspicious. Hasn't Stefan Theil heard of citing sources? Or copyright?

Oh pipe down. If you would have read my article, you would have seen this:
In Germany, unemployment is finally falling after years at Depression-era levels, thanks in no small part to welfare reforms that in 2005 pressured Germans on the public dole to take up jobs.

Yet the German school system seems to be still brainwashing the children that free-market policies are bad for the country...why?
Wait... how is encouraging welfare recipients to get back to work "free market"? Socialism doesn't mean that everyone sits on their asses and does nothing while receiving free money or that even a large majority do.

Actually, in the US education system if any children shows pro-socialist opinions in essays they are treated like holocaust deniers by the teachers.

Having been through high school with an avowed socialist, who ended up 4th in the class, I can say with all certainty: You are full of a massive, smelly pile of shit.

Seriously. Where the heck would an American kid get pro-socialist viewpoints to begin with?

They have these things called books. Apparently people open them and read them, around these parts.

Having been through high school with an avowed socialist, who ended up 4th in the class, I can say with all certainty: You are full of a massive, smelly pile of shit.

Seriously. Where the heck would an American kid get pro-socialist viewpoints to begin with?

I don't understand the problem other than leaving out truths about Palestine and such. I'd have thought it was a great step forward, especially if a whole country can work under Communism. I used to live in a small commune as a child, it was wonderful. I find this article to be rather offensive ^^;

Edit: Obviously children should have an unbiased education though. All systems have faults and advantages, just do what works best, if Germany thinks it would benefit from socialism, that's wonderful.

Oho, the usual rant about "aieee!!! the teachers are all kommiez!!! the EU is CCCP!!!"...
What, you mean it isn't? :confused:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/EuropeanUnionofSovietSocialistRepub.png

:p

Actually, in the US education system if any children shows pro-socialist opinions in essays they are treated like holocaust deniers by the teachers.As someone educated in the US education system, I say no.

However, you may complete the following sentence:
"You can find support for my allegation at ..."

They have these things called books. Apparently people open them and read them, around these parts.

Around your parts? I've never heard of any such parts.

Well when I took Econ in high school is was biased towards Capitalism, but I’d say that is because it wanted (and did) to give us an understanding of the global economy and the economic systems in place in Western countries.
So propaganda and bias is OK if it’s propaganda and bias in favour of capitalism?

Surprise, surprise. Your arguments make no sense again.

Frankly, I wouldn’t want children taught that market fundamentalism was a good thing; there’s obvious, practical problems with the market left to run everything. Any half-decent economic education should highlight these dangers, as well as the dangers of mass protectionism and centralisation.

Indri I agree, environmentalism is a reactionary notion created mostly by degenerate lumpenproletariat elements
Environmentalism was created by brothel-owners and con-men? How bizarre.

socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, and the proletariat is the modern industrial working class, ie heavy industry.
Which constitutes a tiny minority of the working population of any Western country. Another flaw in your ‘scientific’ take on modern society.


Both TAi and EA display a dogmatic blindness, point blank refusing to view the world as it actually is. Fundamentalism at its worst.

I wonder if you can make a lot of money selling books on socialism. *rubs chin thoughtfully*

Actually, I've been wondering what books are being cited in the first place...

If you're referring to the exchange between me and Dina, I wasn't citing any books. Just stating that it is entirely possible for a kid in the US to find books on economic philosophy and educate himself on the basics of socialism. Which is what a friend of mine did, and advocated in class (including our Economics elective) and still managed nearly a 4.0 without constant down-talk from the teachers.
Which pokes a giant hole in EA's attempt at snarkiness.

Actually, in the US education system if any children shows pro-socialist opinions in essays they are treated like holocaust deniers by the teachers.

Ah, not quite. I live in conservative frigging Montana, and my teachers were quite supportive and willing to read essays and listen to speeches that were defiantly anarcho-communist in slant. Granted, I had some exceptional teachers, but there was no holocaust denier-esque treatment by the faculty or even the students. I'm beginning to think that it matters more how you package communism than the fact that you are a flaming communist.

Stalin worshipping and elitist Marxian tones will get you nowhere. Looking at very human issues will get people to be more willing to listen to you.

I wonder if you can make a lot of money selling books on socialism. *rubs chin thoughtfully*Actually, I've been wondering what books are being cited in the first place...

In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination. Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias. Rooting it out may determine whether Europe’s economies prosper or continue to be left behind.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/164-theil-sidebar.jpg


Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems, and do you beleive this is ok and helpfull to these countries' soceities?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095

Welcome to Latin America then. What you said is nothing close to that. The unionist teachers bring their marxist agenda to the class, and you better not say anything favoring free market's efficiency, or even moderately defending it, otherwise it is an automatic FAIL on your test. And your textbooks here won't tell you otherwise, because the same unionist teachers are the ones who wrote them.

Truly, education should be unbiased towards both sides. Leave for the information media the task of forming opinions, instead of mindwashing the person since their early years, when they have not yet an formed opinion.

But other than that, it shouldn't harm the economy or something. Biased education is not the cause of an extremist (left/right) economic stance in a country, but rather, the consequence of it. Europe is doing well it seems, so don't go alarmist over it yet.

I wonder if you can make a lot of money selling books on socialism. *rubs chin thoughtfully*

Yeah, but only when G.W. Bush is about to make a big speech, you sell the socialist books to people in the crowd, then they throw the books at him, if he's not willing to take a sip at the fountain of knowledge, bury him under it.

Foreign Policy? Wasn't that magazine accused of being alarmist over its publishing of 'The World's Most Dangerous Ideas'? I browsed an Amazon review of it some readers seem to think that the magazine has recently deteriorated into statistic orgy to shock and awe its readers.

Hmm... by the looks of the provided image and the title of the article it does seem to be trying to be quite alarmist. The first two quotes are paraphrased, so I am wondering if they've been misquoted. Whereas the third one seems perfectly fine - it merely seems to be questioning whether the current system is fair and providing a statistic to consider.

Conversely you might want to consider that if Europe's schools are biased towards social democracy when how are the schools of other countries biased?

Besides, anyone who thinks capitalism isn't brutal is deluding themselves. The brutality of capitalism is a result of the competitive nature that capitalism promotes and thrives upon.

Upon reading the rest of the article I really do think the writer is attempting to be alarmist. All his arguments are weak and phrased in such a way that, if you read between the lines, one could conclude that he doesn't actually have an argument - just an agenda.

Do you beleive these countries have a bias when teaching economic systems, and do you beleive this is ok and helpfull to these countries' soceities?


I can't speak for France, but I don't believe that Germany's school system teaches students about economic systems with any extremist bias as alleged in the article. In fact, I'd like to strengthen that sentence to "I know it doesn't", seeing how I'm currently in my last semester of training to be an economy teacher in Germany, and funnily enough I've just finished a class on "Bias in Economy Schoolbooks" and am currently examining several schoolbooks in order to create a series on the development of market theories from Adam Smith (time allocated: three session à 45 minutes), Keynes (time allocated: two session) and Müller-Armarck (time allocated: 2 sessions). I have yet to find a book that is not intent on teaching kids the basic notions of what a market and its forces are and that there is the idea out there that the market is self-healing/self-regulating, and then go on to also teach them what kinds of other ideas have been around trying to regulate the market, with special emphasis on getting them to understand what we have today and how we got there.

No, I cannot say that schoolbooks here forgo Smithonian ideals. No, I cannot say that (most) schoolbooks express any strong bias for any economic system. Schoolbooks here have the job to educate students on past and existing economic ideals and realities, and that they do, and not to sway them to support any particular one, and that they don't.

P.S.: Oh, and for the Elk's sake, quit the silly asterixing of your thread titles; it's quite annoying, and if you're too inept/lazy to find your own threads on NSG without such help, you might want to reconsider posting anything at all.


Yet the German school system seems to be still brainwashing the children that free-market policies are bad for the country...why?

the problem here is that the schools are NOT teaching the good things of free-market Capitalism but simply showing the bad things about it and globalization and the good things about socialism and protectionism, that is what the article is getting at...the extreme BIAS.

I get the feeling that "brainwashing" and "bias" are words best left to describe your source and your reaction to it, rather than the reality it allegedly talks about - and I'll happily stand corrected if you or anybody else is able to show e excerpts from textbooks and/or curricula that demonstrate your point, but so far my own study of those hasn't unearthed anything the like.

I usually get terribly frustrated by the discourse in the German media and German-language fora when it comes to capitalism. It's incredibly uninformed and often comes down to a blind recital of that word I've come to hate: "neoliberal". No one's ever been able to explain to me exactly what they mean when they use it, but they tend to get very upset when I ask.
This has not been my impression, and judging solely from the sources you usually cite when talking about German politics, I strongly advise you to consult other sites than Spiegel and related fora - these are not the places to go if you want informed, rational, non-sensational and unbiased/less biased news.

What makes you say that?

Heh, I knew that would irk some. It irks socialists who like to believe that the US represents everything foul and wrong and capitalistic and is, therefore, a non-socialist wasteland. It irks capitalists who like to believe that the US represents everything good and pure and capitalistic and is, therefore, a non-socialist utopia.

But there are far too many socialist programs in government, socialist views, socialist influences in modern US and western society in general to claim that it is not at least "quasi-socialist" or "socialist-leaning" or "with socialist parts." All of which qualifies as socialism to me.

No shit. At least they are taught it, however...

Very simply, no educative system will be wholly objective, just as no module on a degree will be without the personal opinions of the lecturer. I must confess, however, I would rather have a pro-capitalist bias than anything else.

I guess this is what happens when governments run schools.

No shit.
What happened to you?

Meanwhile, two in three Germans say they support at least some of the voodoo-economic, roll-back-the-reforms platform of a noisy new antiglobalization political party called Die Linke (The Left), founded by former East German communists and Western left-wing populists.

That line was just overdone. I mean, I was cruisin' along the article and all of a sudden-BAM! Voodoo? the heck?
Die Linke?

New my arse, they're basically an offshoot of Lafontaine's crew from the SDP and the remnants of the SED.

In what way? Why my account disappeared? Or why I'm a more cheerful version of me?

My account disappeared because it did. Fuck knows why.:D

More cheerful me is the result of being in love. Baaad idea in first year Uni, I know, but bah! I'm happy.

Screw that. I met my girlfriend in the first semester of first year and we're still together three years later :)

What happened to you?

In what way? Why my account disappeared? Or why I'm a more cheerful version of me?

My account disappeared because it did. Fuck knows why.:D

More cheerful me is the result of being in love. Baaad idea in first year Uni, I know, but bah! I'm happy.

Nice. Even better, she lives opposite me.:D

As did mine at the time .......... Did you steal my life?

Screw that. I met my girlfriend in the first semester of first year and we're still together three years later :)

Nice. Even better, she lives opposite me.:D

My account disappeared because it did. Fuck knows why.:D
You can get it reactivated if you simply didn’t log in for 30 days.

I guess this is what happens when governments run schools.

You mean, as opposed to the unbiased bliss that is when churches, various political and ideological organizations, corporations, rich individuals/families and/or other private actors with a definite interest to form children their way take over responsibility for the national education?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Plus, you still need to present evidence that any of the allegations of the OP are only vaguely reminiscent of this elusive thing called "truth".

*facepalm*

When your "revolutionary dictatorship (over) the proletariat" has salted the earth, poisoned the water and scorched the skies, maybe then you'll realize that ecology is a transclass issue that is no less important to abstraction of "the proletariat" which you worship than it is to "degenerate lumpen elements".

Kind of like when you don't look after your reactors properly?
http://glen.utdallas.edu/chernobyl.jpg

On a side note, I reject this nonsense about supporting welfare as merger of capitalism and socialism, it's not taking the proportions into account. It is really just slightly watered down capitalism, and I'm sure many (real) socialists and libs and centrists will agree here, neoclassical economics, even though it may support state intervention if it's for the good of the greater economy, are founded entirely different ideologies. Not only this, but western economies are still strongly positively skewed towards capitalism, if we took a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being libertarianism, 0 being socialism, western economies are really around 8.5. I just don't like calling it a "mix of the two".

/end rant

Ah, not quite. I live in conservative frigging Montana, and my teachers were quite supportive and willing to read essays and listen to speeches that were defiantly anarcho-communist in slant. Granted, I had some exceptional teachers, but there was no holocaust denier-esque treatment by the faculty or even the students. I'm beginning to think that it matters more how you package communism than the fact that you are a flaming communist.

Stalin worshipping and elitist Marxian tones will get you nowhere. Looking at very human issues will get people to be more willing to listen to you.

Incidentally, to wander slightly off topic, but I've found when attempting to argue for communism I spend more of my time making it clear that I'm not advocating totalitarian state run dictatorships. Do I need to just purchase a cricket bat and smash it into people's skulls, or is there a better way?

(...)so there's little surprise that Merkel's reforms have created that outcome, if, indeed, the issue as clear-cut as that.
Actually, it was Chancellor Schröder's reforms which brought the change.
The Chancellorette is reaping what he has sown.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/EuropeanUnionofSovietSocialistRepub.png

:p
Sehr hübsch!
I wonder if you can make a lot of money selling books on socialism. *rubs chin thoughtfully*
I doubt it.

And just a little piece of information on the German school system: There is not a single, unified school system but 16 different ones, for each Federal State has an independent Board of Education setting goals. And those States are governed by different parties or combinations of parties.

So much for the information given in the article and the OP. Nice work... NOT!

And just a little piece of information on the German school system: There is not a single, unified school system but 16 different ones, for each Federal State has an independent Board of Education setting goals. And those States are governed by different parties or combinations of parties.
Genau.

Still, I think that the most interesting thing about the upcoming elections in Niedersachsen is probably the word "Killerspiele" :p

Genau.

Still, I think that the most interesting thing about the upcoming elections in Niedersachsen is probably the word "Killerspiele" :p
Well, I can tell you that this here Killerspielspieler is going to vote for Wolfgang Jüttner. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/spd.gif

Well, I can tell you that this here Killerspielspieler is going to vote for Wolfgang Jüttner. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/spd.gif
Not a bad choice. I went on the Wahl-o-Mat, and it said that I should vote SPD, Bündnis90/Die Grüne or Die Linke.

http://www.bpb.de/methodik/TBF7ZE,0,WahlOMat.html

Not a bad choice. I went on the Wahl-o-Mat, and it said that I should vote SPD, Bündnis90/Die Grüne or Die Linke.

http://www.bpb.de/methodik/TBF7ZE,0,WahlOMat.html
Ah yes, the Wahlomat. :D

Shows again that I'm 2/3rds Social Democrat and 1/3rd Green. :p

When people are lazy, they want others to be lazy as well so that they won't feel embarrassed when they fall behind as the world move forward. Who cares about the future of the country? Not when you're a lazy person. These philosophy will help holding back EU while America, Japan, Russia, and China move forward.

Ah yes, the Wahlomat. :D
The best thing to come out of Germany since Choco Leibniz :p
When people are lazy, they want others to be lazy as well so that they won't feel embarrassed when they fall behind as the world move forward. Who cares about the future of the country? Not when you're a lazy person. These philosophy will help holding back EU while America, Japan, Russia, and China move forward.
Nah.

Incidentally, to wander slightly off topic, but I've found when attempting to argue for communism I spend more of my time making it clear that I'm not advocating totalitarian state run dictatorships. Do I need to just purchase a cricket bat and smash it into people's skulls, or is there a better way?

Well, I usually don't even use the dreaded "C" word unless I know whoever I'm talking to knows that a stateless, classless society cannot equal a totalitarian class dictatorship. I find it very helpful.

The word "anarcho-syndicalism" is also very helpful, because it provokes a "?" response instead of an "ebil Kommie!" response from most people. It gives me a chance to define what I mean on my own terms without people's preconceived notions getting in the way.

Workers of the wolrd unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!
What about their jobs and then defaulting on their morgages, eh?

Didn't think of that one too much.

"Workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, and/or homes, jobs and families" isn't so catchy I guess.

What about their jobs and then defaulting on their morgages, eh?

Didn't think of that one too much.

"Workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, and/or homes, jobs and families" isn't so catchy I guess.

Reminds me of a Boondocks episode...

Huey: Hey, you guys unionized and walked out that fast?

Theater Usher: Oh yeah, we unionized alright...until someone called corporate headquarters. They shut down the whole place and fired us all!

Huey: Ughh *raises fist* Power to the People?!

Theater Usher: Fuck you!

I was quoting Marx.
Yes, I know.

What about their jobs and then defaulting on their morgages, eh?

Didn't think of that one too much.

"Workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, and/or homes, jobs and families" isn't so catchy I guess.



I was quoting Marx.

Well, I usually don't even use the dreaded "C" word unless I know whoever I'm talking to knows that a stateless, classless society cannot equal a totalitarian class dictatorship. I find it very helpful.

The word "anarcho-syndicalism" is also very helpful, because it provokes a "?" response instead of an "ebil Kommie!" response from most people. It gives me a chance to define what I mean on my own terms without people's preconceived notions getting in the way.

Anarcho-Syndicalism just makes me think of "Help, Help, I'm Being Oppressed!"

:D

There is some trickling down in unrestrained free market capitalism, but the main direction of the trickling going on is up.

May one also remind a few of our hardcore "greed is good" ideologists that there is not one single socialist country left in Europe, only market economies, although most of them with some kind of conscience left.

No. The gold is trickling down. It's just a euphemistic gold trickle.

Heh, I knew that would irk some. It irks socialists who like to believe that the US represents everything foul and wrong and capitalistic and is, therefore, a non-socialist wasteland. It irks capitalists who like to believe that the US represents everything good and pure and capitalistic and is, therefore, a non-socialist utopia.

But there are far too many socialist programs in government, socialist views, socialist influences in modern US and western society in general to claim that it is not at least "quasi-socialist" or "socialist-leaning" or "with socialist parts." All of which qualifies as socialism to me.It doesn't irk me; it just made me curious as it was an unusual statement. Thank you for your explanation. I would say that it's a case of degrees. America is more capitalist than Europe but both are still more capitalist than they are socialist. i have found most people do not accept any idea that is not capitalist, most of them refuting any alternative with the cliche "It's like communism: it works in theory but not in practise."

When people are lazy, they want others to be lazy as well so that they won't feel embarrassed when they fall behind as the world move forward. Who cares about the future of the country? Not when you're a lazy person. These philosophy will help holding back EU while America, Japan, Russia, and China move forward.What makes you think people in Europe are lazy and they aren't in the US though? I would think of Germany and Japan as hard-working because they have their own industries whereas the UK's economy is based more on foreign investment. Socialism=/=lazy you know.

What, you mean it isn't? :confused:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/EuropeanUnionofSovietSocialistRepub.png

:p

I love that, really, but my italian fashion sense tells me that blue and gold fit better together. ;)

We are the Europeans. You ALREADY have been assimilated.

(isn't it a european language you're using? wasn't your alphabeth made in Europe? ...)

I love that, really, but my italian fashion sense tells me that blue and gold fit better together. ;)Says the person who lacked the creativity to call it the EUSSR... :rolleyes: :p

As someone who actually lives in Europe, and advocates free markets and private enterprise, I can attest that the article and suggestion made in this thread is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read. Europe far from disdaining capitalism, is actually leading in globalisation. In fact many corporations you would expect to be American are actually European.

This has not been my impression, and judging solely from the sources you usually cite when talking about German politics, I strongly advise you to consult other sites than Spiegel and related fora - these are not the places to go if you want informed, rational, non-sensational and unbiased/less biased news.
Maybe you're right. I generally don't frequent German-language fora anymore...I find it astonishingly hard to write German without making mistakes on capitalising and commas these days. :( I suspect it's something that would come back after a while, but it still scares me. Reading is fine, speaking is fine - but I rarely if ever write anything anymore.

Anyways, the Spiegel forum in particular seems to be full of people who agree with each other about how evil "neoliberalism" is, and there are a few writers on the Spiegel staff who propagate that sort of stuff. I suppose I'm just astonished sometimes just how different the whole discourse runs.

Case in point:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,526774,00.html
Leistungsorientierter Individualismus, kulturelle Vielsprachigkeit, ökologische Ernsthaftigkeit und kommunitäre Compassion – mit einem Liberalismus dieser Façon wäre der akademische Nachwuchs im weiblichen Deutschland wohl zu gewinnen.
Bei ihnen ist der Individualismus gewissermaßen rigide auf die Spitze getrieben, ob im Beruf oder in der Freizeit. Hier wie dort wollen junge Leistungsindividualisten bis an die Grenze gehen, die eigenen Potentiale aber auch Beschränkungen nachgerade brutal erfahren. Das Leben soll in jeder Sekunde intensiv und lustvoll sein.
Hier fehlt dem Primat der individuellen Selbstverwirklichung das Korrektiv oder die Ergänzung einer gemeinschaftsbezogenen Verpflichtungsethik.

It's those sorts of things. Just little droplets within sentences that might really make sense, but which no matter how small completely change the tone of the discussion. And it doesn't seem where I look, the Feuilleton, as spread as it may be for the German market, seems far to the left on many issues when seen from the outside. And I'm not sure they're noticing, because they may not be as exposed to the discussion going on Britain, Australia or the US, for example.

Is that a bad thing? Well, I'd argue that it probably is. We happen to live in the 21st century, and globalisation, as much as many try and deny it, is the name of the game at this point. More importantly, no protester and certainly no minister in a second-rate power with a 10% unemployment rate are going to change this. By refusing to move the goalposts of the debate away from the fifties and sixties they're just making it harder.

There are so many people I have spoken to over the years who are happy to rant on and on about welfare addicts, lazy people and crappy government. But for some reason, when policies are proposed which might address issues like this, people get cranky. I thought the idea of starting "Montagsdemos" against the HARTZ programs was horrible and distasteful, but somehow they were quite widely accepted and actually put pressure on the government.

As much as anything, the reason that people might get a sense that things are going down rather than up is that the debate is still shaped in ideas which just aren't going to produce desirable results anymore. And as people need to stop preaching "Verpflichtungsethik" as a subject for public policy, they get the feeling that things are ending. What people don't do is see it as a new beginning - and the fact that "neoliberal" and "Kapitalismus" are both consciously and subconsciously seen as nasty words probably has something to do with it.

Oh, and the Wahl-O-Mat says I should vote FDP, surprisingly enough. :p

And yet, it's America who's facing recession, it's America who's had problems with all sorts of cheap and dangerous imports from china.

Both are productions of free market capitalism.

Both are productions of free market capitalism.
The latter is a product of China.

And I don't think I have to start digging for numbers to make you believe that continental Europe has had its fair share of recessions too. So did the USSR for that matter.

A recession is just two successive quarters of negative economic growth. You can be a nomad tribe in the Amazon for all you care, there can (and will) still be recessions.

Maybe you're right. I generally don't frequent German-language fora anymore...I find it astonishingly hard to write German without making mistakes on capitalising and commas these days. :( I suspect it's something that would come back after a while, but it still scares me. Reading is fine, speaking is fine - but I rarely if ever write anything anymore.
Sorry to hear that. I know how that goes; my Spanish deteriorated rapidly once I left the country and had rarely any opportunity to use it anymore. My receptive skills are quite okay still, specially reading, but both productive skills are severely wanting by now - I keep telling myself that'll vanish once I get to use it again, and recent vacations in Spain seem to partially verify that theory, but I still feel uncomfortable with it all.

Anyways, the Spiegel forum in particular seems to be full of people who agree with each other about how evil "neoliberalism" is, and there are a few writers on the Spiegel staff who propagate that sort of stuff. I suppose I'm just astonished sometimes just how different the whole discourse runs.


IMHO, the Spiegel has experienced a rapid decline starting around 2001/2002 from a respectable, critical news source liable to be among the first to tackle important yet 'sensitive' issues to a biased rag liable to be the first to spew forth sensationalist pseudo-news; it's like it has become the new BILD for academics. The kind of 'news' items, the language, the layout - I really wonder how much longer it'll be able to make itself be publicly perceived as one of the 'serious' publications. I stopped getting it delivered in 2003 and never looked back.

And it doesn't seem where I look, the Feuilleton, as spread as it may be for the German market, seems far to the left on many issues when seen from the outside. And I'm not sure they're noticing, because they may not be as exposed to the discussion going on Britain, Australia or the US, for example.

I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean, but you need to be aware that the Feuilleton is most decidedly NOT (supposed to be) the part of a newspaper where you want to find unbiased reporting. The Feuilleton (as part of the politics section) is meant to be a "Point of View" short essay-ish comment that is actually defined by its partiality, an opinion piece. Some newspapers have two Feuilleton pieces next to each other, with two contrasting opinions, but most opt for only one, and such can change in tone drastically from one week to the other.

I thought the idea of starting "Montagsdemos" against the HARTZ programs was horrible and distasteful, but somehow they were quite widely accepted and actually put pressure on the government.

I don't understand why you think so. In theory, I like the idea of people organizing themselves to stage regular demonstrations against a policy they do not support.
In practice, however, I've found the Montagsdemos I've witnessed to have been true abominations. Quite apart from the absolutely impossible act of naming them Montagsdemos, which I deem not only absolutely tasteless and disrespectful but also completely factually unwarranted, none of them had been a 'political' sort of demonstration which appeared at least remotely backed by a substantial alternative agenda; they rather seemed to be a rowdy gathering of people economically disadvantaged by the new policies who now wanted to vent some - my personal opinion is that they've been largely counterproductive to their cause. Call me a well-off, anti-compassionate elitist snob, but the poor display of outrage completely unsubstantiated by any glimmer of rational arguments or indeed anything other than bouts of "don't cut my money! more money to me! now!" put me off their cause more than I'd thought anything could. Maybe I've just been to the wrong ones..

As did mine at the time .......... Did you steal my life?

Bugger....rumbled....

As someone who actually lives in Europe, and advocates free markets and private enterprise, I can attest that the article and suggestion made in this thread is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read. Europe far from disdaining capitalism, is actually leading in globalisation. In fact many corporations you would expect to be American are actually European.


This is true.

Well, I usually don't even use the dreaded "C" word unless I know whoever I'm talking to knows that a stateless, classless society cannot equal a totalitarian class dictatorship. I find it very helpful.

The word "anarcho-syndicalism" is also very helpful, because it provokes a "?" response instead of an "ebil Kommie!" response from most people. It gives me a chance to define what I mean on my own terms without people's preconceived notions getting in the way.

Both good ideas. Thank you.

<snip>
Case in point:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,526774,00.html
<snip>

Well, my German is rusty, but it looked to me that the first one was talking about community compassion, which would be socialism I suppose. I fail to see how some care for the rest of the community is suddenly going to be the downfall of the entire nation, but maybe I'm just not quite as purely focused on profit and loss as some of our esteemed members are. I will surely see the light when I decide that money should come above community, and the most important thing is to be rich.