america, stop talking about progressive europe is

[ed miliband]

'europe, stop talking about how backwards america is' also works:


America just wasn’t the same after that summer you spent backpacking across Europe. “Everything’s so much better there. The public transportation, the health care, solar panels everywhere and the legal beach nudity. No Jesus freaks. And no fat people!”, you'd tell your friends upon your return to the States.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/stop-talking-about-how-progressive-europe-is

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

vice is shit.

[ed miliband]

good job the article is written by a journalist from jacobin magazine then, isn't it? :rolleyes:

regardless, vice is fun and produces some very worthy stuff every so often.

[ed miliband]

that said, the article isn't that good...

[Book O'Dead]

Yeah. All we need to do is to look at Germany's recent anti-circumcision law to tell how "progressive" Europe is!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Europe is full of jesus-freaks, I wonder where they go when they say things like this. Creationists are trying to get "intelligent design" into educational material here, too.

[The Jay]

Yeah. All we need to do is to look at Germany's recent anti-circumcision law to tell how "progressive" Europe is!

I would say that preventing forced and un-necessary surgery is pretty progressive.

[Book O'Dead]

I would say that preventing forced and un-necessary surgery is pretty progressive.

And you describe yourself as what, a "libertarian socialist"?

Good job!

[The Jay]

And you describe yourself as what, a "libertarian socialist"?

Good job!

Yeah, I'm siding with the right of a child not to be cut up because the parents either want him to look like daddy or because some book said so. If the child wants to have it done later I have no problem with it.

[Book O'Dead]

Yeah, I'm siding with the right of a child not to be cut up because the parents either want him to look like daddy or because some book said so. If the child wants to have it done later I have no problem with it.

A "right" as defined by you or someone else other than the child's parents. In this case the German state.

Again, good job!

[The Jay]

A "right" as defined by you or someone else other than the child's parents. In this case the German state.

Again, good job!

I assume that you're for female circumcision as well?

How about corporal punishment?

[Book O'Dead]

I assume that you're for female circumcision as well?

How about corporal punishment?

I don't want to sidetrack this thread. Let's take it somewhere else.

If you agree to participate, I'll start a new thread to discuss your ideological dilemma. I'll title it "Are 'Libertarian Socialists Really Libertarian?"

[The Jay]

If you want to start a serious one that doesn't make light of a serious subject then yes.

[Revolutionair]

Hey people let's go cut babies up.
No. Why? That's terrible.
OMG ARE LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS REALLY LIBERTARIAN?

[The Young Pioneer]

I don't think people who "go backpacking to Europe and return to America saying it's progressive" or whatever, are necessarily wrong; sure if it's some dumb kid saying everything is utopian, they only saw what they wanted to (or what the country allows tourists to see). But there is a kernel of truth to some of it. I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about every European country but I know firsthand that the educational programs in Finland are better and more equal than those in the US. I'd also say many European countries have far better healthcare initiatives than America does.

But all in all, each continent has a lot of capitalist shit for its citizens to sift through so I don't see that it's a very crucial topic..

[Book O'Dead]

I don't think people who "go backpacking to Europe and return to America saying it's progressive" or whatever, are necessarily wrong; sure if it's some dumb kid saying everything is utopian, they only saw what they wanted to (or what the country allows tourists to see). But there is a kernel of truth to some of it. I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about every European country but I know firsthand that the educational programs in Finland are better and more equal than those in the US. I'd also say many European countries have far better healthcare initiatives than America does.

But all in all, each continent has a lot of capitalist shit for its citizens to sift through so I don't see that it's a very crucial topic..

Careful what you say about reforms or you'll be accused of something and threatened with restriction.

[Omsk]

Oh you people don't know how bad it is in Eastern Europe. Rotten mafia-religious-conservative dictatorships of the rulling classes.

[The Jay]

I don't want to sidetrack this thread. Let's take it somewhere else.

If you agree to participate, I'll start a new thread to discuss your ideological dilemma. I'll title it "Are 'Libertarian Socialists Really Libertarian?"

I'm waiting for this thread.

[Book O'Dead]

I'm waiting for this thread.

Really?

[The Jay]

Really?

Yes, and I would publicly embarrass you in it. You have no case.

[Red Rabbit]

So according to the article, Europe is less progressive because it took longer than the U.S. to become progressive?

[Book O'Dead]

Yes, and I would publicly embarrass you in it. You have no case.

Not more than you've embarrassed yourself by claiming the label of "libertarian socialist" on the one hand and expressing support for a repressive law on the other.

[The Jay]

Either make the new thread or drop it. You're derailing this one.

[DasFapital]

if you spent any significant amount of time in places like Idaho or Alabama I imagine western Europe looks pretty damn good.

[Magón]

Honestly, did not know Jacobin's still existed at any level/form.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd be interested in discussing one the central claims of that article, which is the idea that the old aristocracy really was terrified (and eventually vanquished) by ascendant capitalism and the bourgeoisie. This is a common assumption of leftists, although one not shared by all (Silvia Federici being one such exception). I'm not sure how true it is. It's not that there wasn't a social revolution that occured during the beginning of modern capitalism and the industrial revolution, there certainly was, but I also know that some economists have made the case that many members of the old ruling class re-invested into the new emerging capitalist system, rather than fight it. I know that Kevin Carson has argued this point before.

[Ocean Seal]

America just wasn’t the same after that summer you spent backpacking across Europe. “Everything’s so much better there. The public transportation, the health care, solar panels everywhere and the legal beach nudity. No Jesus freaks. And no fat people!”, you'd tell your friends upon your return to the States.
I half agree with what's up here. I think that its really annoying when Americans who went to Europe complain about the American people ie: Fat Prudish Jesus Freaks. But there are genuine things that we should complain about ie: Public Transport, Energy Policy, and Healthcare.

[Ostrinski]

Seems like in France and Spain there's a much more progressive attitude toward sex or am I wrong

[citizen of industry]

I'd be interested in discussing one the central claims of that article, which is the idea that the old aristocracy really was terrified (and eventually vanquished) by ascendant capitalism and the bourgeoisie. This is a common assumption of leftists, although one not shared by all (Silvia Federici being one such exception). I'm not sure how true it is. It's not that there wasn't a social revolution that occured during the beginning of modern capitalism and the industrial revolution, there certainly was, but I also know that some economists have made the case that many members of the old ruling class re-invested into the new emerging capitalist system, rather than fight it. I know that Kevin Carson has argued this point before.

This was ackowledged by Marx in the manifesto. Some of them tried to fight it, when they were losing many invested into the system. That is part of the revolution. There is a quote from the manifesto:


In political practice, therefore, they(the aristocrats) join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.

He is referring to the practice of aristocrats having their lands cultivated for them for the above mentioned products, and also investing in joint-stock companies to compensate for declining rents.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd be interested in discussing one the central claims of that article, which is the idea that the old aristocracy really was terrified (and eventually vanquished) by ascendant capitalism and the bourgeoisie. This is a common assumption of leftists, although one not shared by all (Silvia Federici being one such exception). I'm not sure how true it is. It's not that there wasn't a social revolution that occured during the beginning of modern capitalism and the industrial revolution, there certainly was, but I also know that some economists have made the case that many members of the old ruling class re-invested into the new emerging capitalist system, rather than fight it. I know that Kevin Carson has argued this point before.

Various regions developed in connection with each-other, but also independently and so in England you do have a series of class conflicts over a period of time where things went back and forth but eventually the aristocracy became dependent on the bourgeois and so while the aristocrats still existed, they weren't in control of the main functioning and production of society any more. In other places the aristocracy saw themselves becoming irrelevant on a larger scale as their old ways of doing things began to make them more and more backwards relative to capitalist Europe and so Kings or Tsars would pass reforms in order to try and modernize.

I'm a skeptical that we can trace neo-liberalism in the US and social-democracy in Europe directly back to how capitalism developed in these places. There's obviously some connection, but first of all I think this view downplays the role of class struggle in the balance of forces within a society. Second, it's impressionistic, because the US and Europe have gone through various periods where things have been different - If we compared progressive-era America to England or Germany at that time, I think the US would seem more advanced in some ways.


For us over here on the other side of the pond, the postbellum years were relatively clear sailing. The USA firmly put itself on the road to progress, capitalism and liberalism after the Union Army crushed the slavers down south.This is just plain wrong. Postbellum years had a progressive (capitalist progressive) period of radical reconstruction but it was defeated to the detriment of both southern blacks and poor southern whites and the emerging labor and populist movements. The problem is that they crushed the institution of slavery, then crushed the slavers poltical power, but then re-instated the old rulers as part of a compromise where a virtual social slavery lasted until about WWII and the concept of white supremacy lasted until probably the mid-60s as a viable, if not dominant in some places, mainstream position.

So I think class struggle plays a big part of the way countries look relative to eachother - not just how the rulers developed their rule alone.

A lot of the article is a sort of excuse for capitalism too:

Despite what confused comrades might have told you, it wasn’t the capitalists that started World War One, but the Old Regime: “The Great War was an expression of the decline and fall of the old order fighting to prolong its life rather than of the explosive rise of industrial capitalism bent on imposing its primacy.”Again, while this transition and modernization in Europe at this time definitely played a part in these conflicts, they weren't the prime motivators. I think the author of this book being discussed confuses poltical power with how the society functions. WWI was definitely the result of the problems of capitalism and the need of Germany to become militarily dominant after becoming econically dominant and Great Britain's need to preserve the imperial order that it had created. The players at the top of this conflict may have been aristocrats and monarchs and so on, but the forces at work were capitalist in nature - this is part of the reason ruling classes were so shocked by the conflict, they thought it was going to be armies marching into other capitals like in the past, not a sort of intractable battle and zero-sum conflict for power.

[eric922]

And you describe yourself as what, a "libertarian socialist"?

Good job!

What so strange about that? I am a libertarian socialist and I see no reason why the parents rights should trump the child's when it he is the one being forced to undergo surgery that he does not need and may not want. I think he has more of a right to make these decisions than his parents.

[Blackscare]

Ok, let's stop this derailment before it gets out of hand. If you insist on talking about foreskins, please make a thread about it.

Thank you,

BS

[khad]

Ok, let's stop this derailment before it gets out of hand. If you insist on talking about foreskins, please make a thread about it.

Thank you,

BS
No, don't make a thread about it, because it will probably just get closed again due to the trolling and accusations of anti-semitism thrown around.

Since you were away, you should read up on the latest mod actions.

[Blackscare]

No, don't make a thread about it, because it will probably just get closed again due to the trolling and accusations of anti-semitism thrown around.

Since you were away, you should read up on the latest mod actions.

Ah, fair enough, sorry.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Yeah. All we need to do is to look at Germany's recent anti-circumcision law to tell how "progressive" Europe is!

But that law actually was pretty progressive. A necessary reform if there ever was one.