Capitalism versus Socialism

[belfastuniguy 18]

Stop calling everything offensive. And where does the idea come from that America would somehow be less open to new cultures? When it comes to integration of immigrants, America has a pretty strong record. Don't paint an inaccurate picture of Europe when you know better.quote>

I can be offended how often I like JanYpe...

I was being Europe specific, I'm sure you are aware of this. I am fully aware that America has always been open to immigration. America would not exist without it. I was addressing Europe and as such had no need whatsoever to mention American immigration.

[krbe 193]

About racism in Europe and the US; this is actually hard to compare, given the differences in the immigrants the two blocks recieve. But there is no doubt that as an average immigrant, you'll find it easier to make a living in the US than in Europe. This is due to the policies of the receiving countries; taking the first steps in the US is harder than in Europe, but taking the next ones are harder in Europe than in the US.

In the US immigrants reaches the income levels of citizens far quicker than in Europe. The US recieves independent immigrants, who are having higher education  and works hard, while Europe recieves many with little or no education and often have problem with working. The practice of familiy reunions contribute to this.

Critisising immigration has also been a no-no many places in Europe where the elite has praised the immigration and not accepting the problems that has been brought with it. Rather than addressing the problems, governments often chose to ignore it which in many cases have alienated both immigrants themselves, leading to the ghettofiaction and riots like those we have seen in France the last years, and to the lower level racism developed by people experiencing the problems first hand.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Stop calling everything offensive. And where does the idea come from that America would somehow be less open to new cultures? When it comes to integration of immigrants, America has a pretty strong record. Don't paint an inaccurate picture of Europe when you know better.quote>

I can be offended how often I like JanYpe...

I was being Europe specific, I'm sure you are aware of this. I am fully aware that America has always been open to immigration. America would not exist without it. I was addressing Europe and as such had no need whatsoever to mention American immigration.

quote>

But you were continuing the train of thought that painted Europe as somehow being above racism and far more open to ethnic migrants, which isn't without fault like I said. And I just think it's silly to label something as offensive when it doesn't fit. It's just pointless to take offense to something that can easily be discussed or refuted.

Well I always though America would, the simple fact is that they have a very very large black population. Europe in comparison has a very small black population, so I think basing the view that Europe is more racist is somewhat unfair. The black population in the UK is only about 3%. quote>

This is why I said it's unreasonable to compare the civil rights issues in the US with the lack of them in Europe. It's apples and oranges.

Originally posted by: krbe About racism in Europe and the US; this is actually hard to compare, given the differences in the immigrants the two blocks recieve. But there is no doubt that as an average immigrant, you'll find it easier to make a living in the US than in Europe. This is due to the policies of the receiving countries; taking the first steps in the US is harder than in Europe, but taking the next ones are harder in Europe than in the US.

In the US immigrants reaches the income levels of citizens far quicker than in Europe. The US recieves independent immigrants, who are having higher education  and works hard, while Europe recieves many with little or no education and often have problem with working. The practice of familiy reunions contribute to this.quote>

This brings us back to Capitalism versus Socialism, in a roundabout sort of way. It's not that these immigrants to Europe have a problem with working, it's that they have less opportunities to do so. It is a dangerous trap to see or treat government involvement as a cure-all. Economic participation generates loyalty to the host country. By removing the direct need to survive, a migrant will have less incentive to adapt to society.

 Government help can end up promoting alienation and apathy. The social systems, that were never designed to carry these people who can and want to work, inadvertently holds immigrants back, instead of increasing their chances. People with a lower level of education who nonetheless want to prove themselves can be hindered by regulations on labour, as people who would hire them are hindered by taxation.

Critisising immigration has also been a no-no many places in Europe where the elite has praised the immigration and not accepting the problems that has been brought with it. Rather than addressing the problems, governments often chose to ignore it which in many cases have alienated both immigrants themselves, leading to the ghettofiaction and riots like those we have seen in France the last years, and to the lower level racism developed by people experiencing the problems first hand.quote>

The issues and root causes differ from country to country, but overall immigration was not taken seriously enough up until 200

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguyWell I always though America would, the simple fact is that they have a very very large black population. Europe in comparison has a very small black population, so I think basing the view that Europe is more racist is somewhat unfair. The black population in the UK is only about 3%.quote>

Well, yes America does have a very large black population, but its not really all that spread out, nor is it really that large (maybe compared to other countries though). If I was to guess, I'd say that 90%+ of the African American population lives in the South, with some other pockets spread out across the country. A concentrated group doesn't necessarily mean acceptance in the rest of the country. Observe this 2000 Census map for reference. (Also notice the enormous German ancestory group...).

However, in my opinion no-one should elect someone based on their race - that just isn't right. And that goes both ways, voting for someone just because they are black, or not voting for someone because they are.

[Boggy1 45]

Actually my area is exceedingly homogenic. I can actually go as far as saying that I have haven't talked to one black, asian, indian, muslim, whatever, person for more than 10 minutes in my entire life. My school of 600 pupils has three black students, two polish, a few English, one asian, and a single white African. Scary? I don't know, I guess my area has zero immigration. (That isn't true at all; as my town has a large Gurkha population; you can often go around the town centre and see a number of Gurkha kids speaking to each other in their own language, it just seems that none of them go to my school. But then again I go to places like Birmingham, and I would say one in ten people were either asian or from the middle east. Cardiff to has a huge black population.

I'm positive that it is the same in the USA, that different areas have different levels of immigration.

[belfastuniguy 18]

That's pretty accurate Boggy. I'll give you something else to ponder. Northern Ireland is about 99.2% white. We have started to experience immigration as a result of the economic boom and peace. Although we have had an important Chinese and Indian community since the 1960's and we also have the first and only Chinese elected representative in Europe. Though I have spoken with black and Muslim people, but they only number in the hundreds here and outside Belfast are very rare indeed.

This brings us back to Capitalism versus Socialism, in a roundabout sort of way. It's not that these immigrants to Europe have a problem with working, it's that they have less opportunities to do so. It is a dangerous trap to see or treat government involvement as a cure-all. Economic participation generates loyalty to the host country. By removing the direct need to survive, a migrant will have less incentive to adapt to society.

Government help can end up promoting alienation and apathy. The social systems, that were never designed to carry these people who can and want to work, inadvertently holds immigrants back, instead of increasing their chances. People with a lower level of education who nonetheless want to prove themselves can be hindered by regulations on labour, as people who would hire them are hindered by taxation.quote>

I would agree on that. European government (not all) have tended to 'look after' migrants just as they do their native population. Unlike in America were you need to fend for yourself as such and this is one of the reasons for the current situation in many poor areas of cities. There has been a desire to group together and not embrace their adopted country. As such they don't participate fully in society and don't reap the rewards. It also creates tension between what people see as insular communities and communities that are rejecting the British way of life, or French, German, whatever it may be.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

Actually my area is exceedingly homogenic. I can actually go as far as saying that I have haven't talked to one black, asian, indian, muslim, whatever, person for more than 10 minutes in my entire life. quote>

   Yes, I'd call that a little scary.

I was surprised when my British friends told me they don't know any Jewish people.   That struck me as unusual; I've been around Jewish people my whole life. 

I was also surprised when one of my Brit friends referred to herself as the "product of a mixed marriage".  I asked her how she figured that.  Well, it turns out her father is English but her mother is Irish.  I had to work at not laughing.

I'm positive that it is the same in the USA, that different areas have different levels of immigration.quote>

Definitely.   There are many small towns here that sound like your town in terms of lack of diversity.  (and, yes, I think it's scary there too.)   I was amazed at the stories of a co-worker who grew up in a small town in West Virginia.  Apparently it was a big deal there when they first got a Chinese restaurant.   The coastal areas tend to have a greater variety.

[Micah 16]

I'm confused. Is the thread about immigration or capitalism vs socialism?

Perhaps someone should create another thread, or I may just create one myself and move the immigration posts there.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I did go off-topic, but in a strange way came back round to socialist policies of some European government

[DocRorlach 25]

Definitely.   There are many small towns here that sound like your town in terms of lack of diversity.  (and, yes, I think it's scary there too.)   I was amazed at the stories of a co-worker who grew up in a small town in West Virginia.  Apparently it was a big deal there when they first got a Chinese restaurant.   The coastal areas tend to have a greater variety.

quote>

 

A recent article in The Economist covered equally recent research into the elusive theme of happyness. Turns out that the communities or countries that made the top on the list for "happiest places", like Island, all had one thing in common: their populace was largely homogenic. Though not necessarily either very socialistc nor very capitalistic in their societal makeup.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: Micah I'm confused. Is the thread about immigration or capitalism vs socialism?

Perhaps someone should create another thread, or I may just create one myself and move the immigration posts there.quote>

 

But the makup of a society plays a very direct role in its social or capital outlook. It creates a circular reference. Thus I do think the comments are relevant.

Besides, if a particular thread ends up taking a more specific or even new direction - why take the messages out? To moderate does also mean to apply moderation, implying neutral observation, does it not?

[belfastuniguy 18]

@ DocRorlach - Did you mean Ireland?

I remember that Economist article and yes Ireland was deemed the happiest place to live in the world. I was a combination of factors including its social makeup, prosperity, lifestyle, government and natural environment. I would agree. I am aware some are not happy, having a 100% happiness rate is impossible in a modern society, but living here I can understand why we came top.

[DocRorlach 25]

However, in my opinion no-one should elect someone based on their race - that just isn't right. And that goes both ways, voting for someone just because they are black, or not voting for someone because they are.quote>

 

It is basic human nature to take the short-cut of built-in defense mechanisms such as "prejudice" - either way - in order to survive in an environment. Thus every electorate will vote largely along the lines of what it perceives its own: race, creed, religion, money. All of which are instinctive (after 100 centuries on the planet as societies we're barely out of the caves), all of which are meant to be protective. And yes this is about C or S, because both, in their "ideal" form reject integration of minorities. The former because it needs them to fuel their economies of scale; the latter because it perceives anything non-homogenic as a direct threat. A quick read of some of the classic capitalistic or socialistic literature will show you that.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy @ DocRorlach - Did you mean Ireland?

I remember that Economist article and yes Ireland was deemed the happiest place to live in the world. I was a combination of factors including its social makeup, prosperity, lifestyle, government and natural environment. I would agree. I am aware some are not happy, having a 100% happiness rate is impossible in a modern society, but living here I can understand why we came top.quote>

 

No, its actually Island that made the top of that hitparade - at least in the quoted book. It's in the January 19th issue of the European edition which, incidentally contains a nifty article on the Museum of American Finance entitled "Curating Capitalism". The happiness article is a dual bookreview (Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner; Against Happiness by Eric Wilson - I wonder if the name Eric leads to unhappiness??)

[belfastuniguy 18]

aaahhh no misunderstood thought you were referring to the Happiness Survey by the Economist

I have now properly read the reply and know what you were talking about now.

[saltandsauce 0]

i could quite easily say that the british government favours immigrants over natives the proof is in all these {ethnic background} groups and the number of chances that immigrants can seperate themselves from natives

plus people have a right to be defensive until its you who's made redundant you will continue to think the way you do

evolution has shown it has been beneficial to be prejudiced since it has stayed with us for thousands of years and its not just against other countries in close knit places the locals are cautious of strangers and rightly so since they are and could be anybody

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy aaahhh no misunderstood thought you were referring to the Happiness Survey by the Economist quote>

 

Which goes to show: happiness is not in the eye of the beholder but in the pen of the pollster. Capitalism, as understood on the other, American side of the Atlantic, is considered a capitalistic constitutional right, just like baring arms. Whereas any instituionalized socialism views happiness usually as a curable itch - at the best of times.

[belfastuniguy 18]

evolution has shown it has been beneficial to be prejudiced since it has stayed with us for thousands of years and its not just against other countries in close knit places the locals are cautious of strangers and rightly so since they are and could be anybodyquote>

Beneficial. Lets look at that for a couple of minutes and actually THINK about it. Prejudice's has been one of major reasons for some of the worst and most horrendous human acts of violence and war in this planets history. Rwanda, Hitler, Japanese violence against the Chinese and British during WW2, the denial of rights to Black Americans, the KKK, the ghettos that were enforced on Europe's Jewish population which started in Italy, specifically Venice.

Lets also look at the long history of African violence and indeed violence against people throughout history. I may also add that such reasoning was one of the factors behind the violence in Ireland the Northern Irish Troubles. That statement is so incredibly flawed and inaccurate and shows lack of thought.

i could quite easily say that the British government favours immigrants over natives the proof is in all these {ethnic background} groups and the number of chances that immigrants can seperate themselves from nativesquote>

I don't agree....yes the British government was welcome to inward migration during 1960's/70's and to a lesser extend 80's. This is because many came from former British colonies and the British economy needed them. Immigrants can not be blamed on unemployment in former industrial tows, that is simple economics and the reality of world trade. Many immigrants have contributed a lot to British society doing the jobs we shun our noses at even those lazy unemployed people that can't be bothered to give up daytime tv and state handouts.

Recently the government has become tougher on immigration with valid reason. I do not understand the reason behind that statement and see it as being based on false logic.

[DocRorlach 25]

Beneficial. Lets look at that for a couple of minutes and actually THINK about it. Prejudice's has been one of major reasons for some of the worst and most horrendous human acts of violence and war in this planets history. Rwanda, Hitler, Japanese violence against the Chinese and British during WW2, the denial of rights to Black Americans, the KKK, the ghettos that were enforced on Europe's Jewish population which started in Italy, specifically Venice.quote>

Belfastinguy, you're confusing prejudice with bigotry: its the latter that got us the social disasters around the globe. Prejudice is a simple survival function: you are prejudiced against fire, because while it may give you heat and cooking, it may also rob you of your belongings and your life. Bigotry plays a primary part in all social forms, C & S, because it is usually fostered by one group to retain power over all other groups.

[saltandsauce 0]

British society needs a bit of a shake up since people won't do those jobs because they will be a laughing stock there are plenty of binmen, fruit pickers, stable boys (horse poo cleaning) and cleaners who don't mind the actual work itself but the shunning and general snobbery of other people who are working in an office and are well paid and work regular hours, in the 80s when all the coal mines closed people expect to do a different job every ten years instead of working at a job you can do for most of your life you are still open to promotion but you shouldn't demand it the promotion will come to you not the other way around (although you have to try and be noticed, theres a way of going about it)

and thats why we have to import people who will work in that way until of course they demand a leg up and so the cycle keeps going

yes you are confusing prejudice with bigotry, if prejudice wasn't beneficial then it would have been wiped out by evolution

and by the way if you think everyone will ever get on happy happy la la land then you are in for a huge surprise, since the global economy is having a cold people will fight with each other for jobs etc. and all these "integration schemes" and "melting pots" will become "waste of money" and "hellhole"

and before you go and say i havn't thought this through again look up the dictionary for prejudice it will say " to form an opinion before examination" not "to take all people of other races ,religions and greeds and burn them at the stake" now here is a scenario

there is a loud guy your local pub, a great big, burly bloke who you have heard shouting abuse at someone in the street earlier. He's very drunk. you look at the telly above him then he sees you thinking you are gawking at him and then starts staring at you

do you:

(a) down that pint down and get out of there as quickly as possible

(b) ask him politley why he has been shouting at people

© pick a fight with him

now hmmm which do you think will end the day with you in one piece and conscious

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: saltandsaucethere is a loud guy your local pub, a great big, burly bloke who you have heard shouting abuse at someone in the street earlier. He's very drunk. you look at the telly above him then he sees you thinking you are gawking at him and then starts staring at you

do you:

(a) down that pint down and get out of there as quickly as possible

(b) ask him politley why he has been shouting at people

© pick a fight with him

now hmmm which do you think will end the day with you in one piece and consciousquote>

Where's the 'Dont' be Intimidated' option? If he trys to start something, you got the barman there who'll kick him out and call the cops at the first ounce of trouble. Or the Barman rounds up a posse armed with Pool cues and sets the Staffie Bull Terrier on him... i've lived in Pub before, I know exactly how its done

[Cuahtemoc 0]

This may sound really basic, but I'd say that its not the type of gov't that matters (Capitalist, Socialist), but the leaders who are in the gov't. For example, the fascists of the '30s-'40s could have give authoritarians/dicatators a good name if they weren't so aggresive, un-ethical and such...but look at the U.S. gov't in the present day-I won't have to explain that.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Thats a valid point... Hitler and Stalin were both on sperate ends of the idealogical ladder, but both were maniacal lunatics. What I would like to know is if history would perceive the Soviet Union any different if Trotsky had came to power instead of Stalin. Since one can be part of a Socialist Dictatorship or a Capitalist Democracy, one can also be part of a Socialist Democracy or a Capitalist Dictatorship... its not the Economics that make a country good/bad, its the Political direction and decisions they make. Even if Hitler had started WW2, we probably wouldn't view him with such hatred had he left the Jews alone...

[krbe 193]

And euthnasia, the slavs, and so on. There are several thing that makes Hitler an unusual dictator; maybe we should say Social Darwinism all together?

[saltandsauce 0]

el burro you seem to remember the single rule of everything: nobody likes a grass (telltale)

besides i said it was a big burly guy so the barman might not ba able to physically throw him out

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce el burro you seem to remember the single rule of everything: nobody likes a grass (telltale)quote>

Nobody likes a complete b*****d either. The 'grass' rule is a quite a yobish way of looking at things... if somebody is on the verge of having their face puree'd by an angry lump of swearing Glasweigian then you should do whatever you can to prevent it... and besides going in yourself and getting mashed, you might as well call the the Police because thats what their there for. You put your tax money to good use, while getting a good fill of some drama as they tackle the guy to a ground then try and stuff him into the back of a panda car.

Im my experience, iv'e seen a violent Bar situation done both ways... with and without the police... lets just say the one without the police ended up getting us in more trouble than the criminal.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

evolution has shown it has been beneficial to be prejudiced since it has stayed with us for thousands of years and its not just against other countries in close knit places the locals are cautious of strangers and rightly so since they are and could be anybodyquote>

Beneficial. Lets look at that for a couple of minutes and actually THINK about it. Prejudice's has been one of major reasons for some of the worst and most horrendous human acts of violence and war in this planets history. Rwanda, Hitler, Japanese violence against the Chinese and British during WW2, the denial of rights to Black Americans, the KKK, the ghettos that were enforced on Europe's Jewish population which started in Italy, specifically Venice.

Lets also look at the long history of African violence and indeed violence against people throughout history. I may also add that such reasoning was one of the factors behind the violence in Ireland the Northern Irish Troubles. That statement is so incredibly flawed and inaccurate and shows lack of thought. quote>

Well, here's the rub: out in the wild, prejudice is beneficial because it helps you to survive if you fear and distrust that which is unfamiliar to you and different from you. After all, that which is unfamiliar and different could be a predator looking to eat you.

On the other hand, in modern society, what worked for us for literally millions of years now works against us since the situation has changed. We no longer have to worry about getting eaten by sabertooth tigers, but technology has made it such that different types of people form all over the world can easily end up mixing in one place. And, thus, people of one race fear and distrust people of another for the same reason they used to fear and distrust lions- they're different, and you don't know what they're like. In the days of old, no one from Africa ever met anyone from Asia or even knew what Asia was- they were too far apart. So this wasn't a problem. But yes, people tend to be prejudiced because it's human nature to be prejudiced. There are a lot of things about civilized society that go against human nature- and that's why it requires the likes of a government and police in order to maintain it. Strictly speaking, anarchy is much more what nature intended- and is indeed how relations among wild animals work. Of course, squirrels don't have guns to shoot each other with or bombs to blow each other up with, nor do they have huge buildings and bridges to knock down, so it works for them because the harm they can really do to each other and to their surroundings is very limited.

Now, the key thing to remember is that prejudice involves distrusting that which is unfamiliar. As such, the best way to combat it is simply to become familiar with other people. A white kid who grows up only ever playing with other white kids is going to come out highly prejudiced. A white kid who plays with Hispanic, black, Asian, etc. kids all the time will grow up familiar with such people, knowing from personal experience there's no rational reason to fear or distrust them, and is almost certain to grow up to think much more fairly. And that's why towns with large ethnic and racial diversity are actually best for society.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87 In the days of old, no one from Africa ever met anyone from Asia or even knew what Asia wasquote>

That must have been a really long time ago; we've more interaction with each other than most think. For the European side of history, you have the Romans which came across much of North America, and deep into the Middle East; the Vikings sailed to America, deep into Russia and along the African coast by the turn of the first millenia after Christ; Marco Polo went to China, and Dengis Khan tried to occupy Europe. Later on, Spain, Portugal, Britain and France tried to conquer every square centimetre of the world.

And that's the European side of the story; arabs, Chinese and so on of course explored their own back yards.

But yes, prejudice is the reason we're alive now. That governs what we eat, which women we prefer and when we cross the street (all these things has to do with our prejudice towards the color red).

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: Boggy1My school of 600 pupils has three black students, two polish, a few English, one asian, and a single white African. Scary?

I'm positive that it is the same in the USA, that different areas have different levels of immigration.quote>

That is a bit scary, the biggest school I went to had 1,500 students..~700 black, ~725 white, ~75 hispanic or asian.

True that most places have had more immigration than others. For example, most every US state has a majority German ancestry (the Southern states are the exception, where the majority are of Scottish decent). States closest to the Mexican border have more Mexicans than other states and so on. Another country that is rarely brought in to immigration discussion is Brazil. Immigration wise, Brazil like the US, was built on Immigration, only they received a more exotic mix.

As mentioned, it would be more difficult for an immigrant to assimilate in Europe than in the US. The vast majority of Europeans who immigrate to the US have no problems assimilating, and most would probably never return to Europe aside from Vacation. Of course, that might be true of Americans who move to Europe? Who knows.

How does an immigrant get healthcare under a socialized system anyways? If they don't pay the taxes they don't get the service? Or are they treated anyways?

The reality of it is, Socialism and Capitalism aren't really superior to one another. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Usually it depends on the country with the system, and the leader of said county. Capitalism gives every person a chance to advance themselves. (don't ever say thats not true, a hard working, intelligent student from a poor family can get a scholarship and get a high paying job). I think that Socialism deprives a lot of individuals of incentive, since either way you aren't really going to better yourself. In an attempt to provide a level playing field, it has really taken away any reason to get ahead.

(How do you like that...covered Immigration, Capitalism vs. Socialism, and touched on Healthcare, all in one post!)

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

1 That is a bit scary, the biggest school I went to had 1,500 students..~700 black, ~725 white, ~75 hispanic or asian.

2 As mentioned, it would be more difficult for an immigrant to assimilate in Europe than in the US. The vast majority of Europeans who immigrate to the US have no problems assimilating, and most would probably never return to Europe aside from Vacation. Of course, that might be true of Americans who move to Europe? Who knows.

3 How does an immigrant get healthcare under a socialized system anyways? If they don't pay the taxes they don't get the service? Or are they treated anyways?

4 (How do you like that...covered Immigration, Capitalism vs. Socialism, and touched on Healthcare, all in one post!)quote>

1 During my primary and secondary years I've never known more than 3 immigrants on my school (there was always a couple more, but not around my year). That's how it is when you live in some of the whitest areas ever known to man (in modern times at least).

2 I've had plenty of neighbours that lived and worked in the US; but that's probably quite an exception. As most immigrants, many return home when they're old (my mum tries to scare me off moving to far away from home with the tales of a woman gone insane when she realised there was no one left when she returned from the US after her American family was dead)

3 In Scandinavia, foreigners from outside the Nordic countries will have to reside six weeks before you're a member of the Health Insurance System (so that at least one Insruance payment has been deducted from your salary < this does not apply to students, at least not European ones). Immigrants from the Nordic countries need not be a resident for six weeks. European immigrants are covered by their national systems if they need surgery or other hospital treatment in the six week period, while a simple emergency insurance covers the rest.

4