Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (87750)	3/29/2003 4:12:17 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nice exchange between you and Jacob. By the way, the United States never was hostile to the socialist governments of Europe, nor even many Third World socialist governments. Sweden was never in any danger, nor was Nehru's India. It was hostile to radical socialist governments that aligned themselves with the Soviet Union....... Well put. An alternate interpretation is location. Chile was deemed in the US sphere of influence, thus socialism in as critical a country as Chile was a genuine thorn in the side. Socialism in the Scandinavian countries and in India was not so.

To: Neocon who wrote (87750)	3/29/2003 9:26:07 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<the United States never was hostile to the socialist governments of Europe, nor even many Third World socialist governments. Sweden was never in any danger, nor was Nehru's India.> Two reasons: First, lots of people and parties use the label "socialist", and it can mean very different things. Stalin called himself a socialist (and a democrat, too). Hitler called his party the National Socialist Party. The Labor Party in the UK has a socialist tradition/roots, but is now only slightly to the left of the U.S. Democratic Party. Most of the Socialist Parties of Europe (and many of the Communist Parties too), have made an accomodation with capitalism since 1991. The Communist Party of China has a policy that is neither Marxist nor Maoist, nor even socialist. Really, they are Nationalists. So the formal labels don't mean much. Secondly, what Allende did, that stepped over the line (from the Hegemon's viewpoint), was seize the copper mines, owned by U.S. multinationals, without compensation. The Swedes may call themselves socialists, but they don't do things like that. Poor nations often (for nationalist, not socialist, reasons) do this, to take back control of their own national natural resources. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes not. The Mexicans nationalized their oil industry, the Egyptians seized the Suez Canal in 1954 (and held onto it in 1956), the Panamanians got back their canal later. Picking the pocket of the world's bully is dangerous, but lucrative.