http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-240057,00.html don't have time to post on this story just yet...but give me your thoughts... just briefly, it seems that a sovereign nation with an entirely different culture from another would encounter problems in just all of a sudden saying, "ok...let's agree to share an economy, foreign policy, etc." Seems like there are instant conflicts...
Neat. I don't know much about the intricacies of the EU, but I do believe the one-currency thing has only one benefit: putting an end to the Cambia's (currency exchangers) throughout Europe! Those people loved to rip tourists off. Outside of that, the one-currency system is bad for the same reasons as the gold-standard was bad. It limits an individual country's ability to respond to its economic depressions and booms. It's just an economic disaster waiting to happen, in my opinion.
agreed...particularly when extremely stable governments (like UK) are mixed with extremely unstable ones (like Italy). i've read the arguments both for and against the EU...and I think the ones against make more sense.
"The former Prime Minister says in her new book, serialised in The Times, that most of the problems the world has faced, including Nazism and Marxism, have come from mainland Europe." This is a bizarre statement to say the least. How about world hunger? The threat of nuclear war? Global warming? And how exactly has European Marxism posed a threat to the world? Perhaps the Iron Lady's brain is beginning to rust.
This is a bizarre statement to say the least. How about world hunger? The threat of nuclear war? Global warming? And how exactly has European Marxism posed a threat to the world? Perhaps the Iron Lady's brain is beginning to rust. I think she was referring to the world's political problems. As for the threat of nuclear war, that started primarily due to tensions between soviet block and western countries (the US and UK included, of course). You could argue that, initially (before long-range missiles), any nuclear war between the USSR and the West would have been based on conflict on mainland Europe.
I'm sure you're right, but even politically, that's a very odd statement. Is she suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with Europe that causes problems start there? What's she really trying to say?
I think what she's trying to say is that it's been the experience of Thatcher and the UK that the rest of Europe can be quite tumultuous. Certainly more objective eyes can point out that the whole world is...but from her perspective, these ideas on the extreme right and the extreme left were all born out of Europe. And Great Britain has had to take the lead over there in putting down those ideas... is she saying Marxism is a similie (i haven't spelled that word since third grade, so not sure if it's right!) to Communism. If so then it's fairly easy to see how the terror that was borne out of that ideology for millions of people. I'm reading the first George Bush's book right now, A World Transformed. Bush talks a lot in that book about how afraid Thatcher and others in the UK were concerning German unification. This was a nation that in the previous century had been a major player in the impetus of two world wars. And the UK was bombed to hell as a result of that...clearly you can see how her perspective on these issues is colored by experience and history. I'd say that's a pretty logical approach.
Madmax, as you note she was completely wrong in her analysis of the threat of German reuinfication. Her logic applied to false assumptions led to bs. Garbage in garbage out as in a computer. She is living in the past. I think it is is a type of nostalgia for the days when Britain was the leading empire and a world power.
I think that Europe realizes that the only way to compete with the larger nations is to unite. Small countries like France, Germany, Italy etc can not compete in the global economy of today. However, by uniting, they can become a sort of European USA...now that is a HUGE IF.....but that I think is what they are trying to accomplish. DD
are you serious dadakota??? germany is competing quite well in the world economy!!! the concern here is that these nations have very different values about government and basic rights (rights which the italians would call superflous and the english would call fundamental). There is more difference than merely geography among European nations. I have an English lady who goes to my church...she just got back from visiting family there and they are all very concerned that the EU will actually be a hindrance on them...that it will hold Great Britain back. Looking at the cast of characters, I would agree with them. Getting these countries to agree on anything is an exercise in futility...see the Allied support of the war on terrorism. They waffle back and forth and there is no clear and concise leadership... glynch -- i'm merely saying what her perspective is. nice of you to write her off as an idiot for it! I don't think she was WRONG on her take on German unification...she just said we should be cautious...she ultimately supported it, through the coaxing of President Bush. So how was she wrong?? She never said, "no way...not on my watch...it will end up in WWIII!!" She was just the first to point out that it made her and others in Europe kinda nervous. I don't think there's anything wrong with having those feelings given history.
Max, I suspect you're right, but the statement smacks of inappropriate prejudice to me. I'll avoid getting side-tracked by pointing out that Marxism was not Leninism and Leninism was not Stalinism and what existed in the Soviet Union that we call Communism was not Communism. And from Leninism on, these ideologies were largely created and exercised in Asia, not Europe. That left aside, Thatcher seems to be suggesting that there is something different about Europe that allowed bad decisions and detrimental movements to be created and/or flourish. Extending this logic, would it be fair to say that the US needs to be watched to ensure that it doesn't become a slave nation again? Or, given that the US has supported ruthless dictators in third world countries this century, should the world then be on guard to ensure that US does not do this again? I do think that we need to be aware of patters that lead to the encouragement of dangerous movements and bad decisions, but I don't think we should condemn Europeans for being European or Americans for being American. Perhaps there was more substance to what she said, and it's just the reporting that has presented this apparent attitude. This kind of hollow generalisation always turns me off. About the EU, free trade, given certain human rights and environmental standards, is a good thing, right? If done right it's a win win deal. Is there any evidence that the EU isn't working this way? And I thought they were all saying similar things about the war on terrorism? That is a political rather than an economic issue in any event.
When I first saw this thread I momentarily thought of Thatcher and E.U. of "Da Butt" fame from Spike Lee's "School Daze." Visions of the iron lady doin' the butt are not a good way to start off the morning!
The EU, to my understanding (and that understanding is quite limited) is more than just a free trade pact. It's more significant than a simple NAFTA arrangement, to my understanding. To my understanding, these political concerns and issues are relevant to the EU. Also...please understand that German unification worried EVERYBODY in Europe, for the most part. Not just the UK. Mitterand expressed great reservations about it as well...and I think it's clear to see why. It's not prejudice..it's experience. When dealing with an ex-felon, are you more or less cautious with "alone time" he might have with your children than you are with your best friend??? Experience is valuable, and ignoring it is silly to me, even if it is done in the name of tolerance. It's easy for you and I to characterize her as ignorant...but she was an older woman who had a different perspective (and, again, a shared perspective) on the issue...her country was bombed to hell by a unified Germany and lost a ton of it citizens, not once but twice in about a 30 year period. I don't think it's ignorant of her to have reservations (reservations she didn't act upon, I might add...she simply said we should proceed with caution) about that.
Ah, good old Margaret...she still sounds etty and small: "don't ever trust Europe, they suck." Grizzled, Don't you know that Marx was the b*stard child of satan? Marxism and Nazism sittin' in a tree...both are as evil as they can be. (psst, hey Margaret, don't forget that the "father" of modern revolutionary socialism was a Brit and pre-dates Marx...ooh, and the Diggers from the 1600's)
Yeah, I must have missed that class. The demonization of "Communism" is a curious thing. Max, I don't really know enough about the structure of the EU either. It stuck me as a good idea, but I don't know enough of the details.
communism is easily demonized when you believe in the fundamental rights of man. it necessarily assumes a structure that is ripe for tyranny. it ignores basic individual survival instincts. it is as evil as fascism is evil, in my opinion. the history of communism on this planet has not been a pretty one for those living within its bounds.
Max, The problem is Thatcher and her complete ignorance by her statement of Marxism being evil. Marxism and communism are not the same, with Marxism actually leading to many good things. Further, as I stated earlier, Marx was not even the originator of socialist/communist ideals. There were even idealistic communists in history who truly were looking out for the fundamental rights of humans, problem was, they usually did not gain power (and were often murdered) - it was always the politicians who often just seemed to use the communist tag to gain popularity before imposing their real totalitarian/fascist regimes. I guess that is the huge flaw with state-run communism, is that it allows for such things (other forms don't, however). So, not only is Thatcher showing her ignorance of origins, but she is also ignorantly grouping them as the same and evil. And, of course, Thatcher is the one who has associated with and defended fascist, violent leaders like Pinochet.
I'm with rimmy and Grizzled. I don't think utopian communism assumes any of those things. Marx wanted workers to own the means of production and form a non-capitalist, classless society based on small bartering groups with no centralised government, as I recall. The centralised government initially formed after a revolution is meant to eventually die away, isn't it? The problem with that theory is that there's always some d******d who mouths the rhetoric, takes over and promptly turns into Stalin. I'm a political pessimist. I don't trust people not to sell out their political principles if there's money or power on the line. That's why I'm more of a socialist/democrat than a true communist. But it's a nice theory.
yeah...that's why i said it assumes a system that is RIPE for tyranny...not that it's inherently tyrannical. i still say it ignores some very fundamental human instincts. and we can talk about utopian communism all we want...it never has existed!!! it exists in some bubble on a college campus somewhere...it is utterly irrelevant in the real world. like i said, the history of communism on this planet has not been pretty for those forced to live under it. and by the way...we're all "dickheads" at heart...man has consistently shown throughout history that, given a chance, he will stab his fellow man in the back. rimbaud -- people have mistakenly equated marxism and communism for years...the words have nearly become similes in common usage, quite frankly.Karl Marx is inherently tied into communism...perhaps because his most notable work contains the word "communist" in the title...whether that's right or wrong is not my concern...ultimately that's a game of semantics, i think. and I certainly don't think it's an indictment of Thatcher. I don't think we can write her off as dimwit for that, whether you agree with her political takes or not. I will not defend her defense of Pinochet...but honestly, I don't remember all of the circumstances regarding those on the other side of the fence from Pinochet in Chile, either.
Max, As a British politician of the highest order, I would expect her to understand the political history of her own country. In general, the Marxism-Communism connection has mostly been isolated to US thought. For the record, I am not a huge fan of Marx...I respect a great deal of his writings, but overall I find others more compelling.
