European Politics

That’s a big surprise to me. I always thought that in English-speaking countries, the “b-word” was considered much more acceptable than the “c-word.”
You're right, it was just an offhand comment on my part. "You used 'communist' instead of 'cunt', but you already called her a bitch multiple times, so I'm not sure why you decided to censor yourself later."

I’ll put it this way: you can only hate communists the same way you hate Nazis. Period. There’s no other way. None.
I forgot to mention in my previous post that the other country of which I am a citizen also imprisoned, tortured, and mass executed communists, but I guess that also doesn't matter to you.
 
Man, the Soviets destroyed the life of my country—and many other Eastern European countries, too. They occupied us for 50 years. You won’t get any sympathy from me on that.

Also, LGBTQ+ people were either in hiding or locked away in mental institutions. They didn't existed. Forget communism—it’s just an attractive mirage. In reality, it was a terrible system. You’re longing for an idealized version of it, a phantom.

Edit:
 
Last edited:
Man, the Soviets destroyed the life of my country—and many other Eastern European countries, too. They occupied us for 50 years. You won’t get any sympathy from me on that.

Also, LGBTQ+ people were either in hiding or locked away in mental institutions. They didn't existed. Forget communism—it’s just an attractive mirage. In reality, it was a terrible system. You’re longing for an idealized version of it, a phantom.

While I sympathize with you, unfortunately the same can be said about capitalism. Different mechanism, but same results. As for idealizing Europe, you've obviously never lived in the poor southern Europe. Where corruption is king and where the strong capitalist states imposed an austerity so brutal people were actually dumpster diving, or like me, migrated. Finally LGBQT+ people are better now in some former east block states? Like Hungary for example? Hardly. You and me like all humans, hate what we know, and you and me like most humans idealize the opposite. Just my 2 cents.

And just for clarity, I believe that all political systems are flawed by default, by nature.

I am now going to go get some sleep confident that I imparted some wisdom to the world. Any replies I'll read and comment tomorrow!
 
European iron curtain was a kind of foreign occupation, but my experience of living in a sovereign communist country is quite different. The key is prosperity, the system managed to boost the quality of lives of a billion people to the stratosphere in a lifetime, so there’s no much to envy from the sorry state of Western democracies.
Nothing is perfect but unlike iron curtain citizens here people do not believe that it’s better on the other side.
 
We, the people from beyond the Iron Curtain, don’t just believe—we see it with our own eyes. Lithuania has never lived better, economically speaking. Sure, after declaring independence, we had to go through all the painful “side effects” of systemic change: russia’s economic blockade, deep poverty, and in the 1990s–2000s, the rise of violent criminal gangs. But we had a direction and a goal. We chose to go toward Europe—to become Europe (notably Northern Europe). Euro-integration began, reforms were made, and over time, the gangs were brought under control. We joined the EU and NATO. Step by step, things improved. Our emigrants—many of whom worked in the UK, later in Norway, Denmark, and elsewhere—are now more often returning home than leaving.

I don’t idealize anything, but Lithuania—and democratic Eastern Europe as a whole—lives much, much better today. Of course, you’ll always find people here who’ll say otherwise, and yes, you’ll occasionally see someone rummaging through trash bins. Pensioners want bigger pensions (which are indexed every year), teachers and medics want higher salaries—understandably so. There’s never enough money for everyone. But Lithuania is thriving. That’s not even up for debate.

So when I see some of you clinging to the dream of communism, I’m just… stunned.

If corruption is still thriving in your country, then you must elect those who will fight it. It won’t happen overnight, but change begins with outrage—from ordinary people. You can’t keep voting for the same corrupt politicians and expect different results. If your law enforcement is rotten to the core, then yes, your society has a serious problem. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed. The demand for change must be loud and constant.

Of course, my country isn’t free of corruption either. But now it’s mostly “under the carpet,” and journalists are doing their jobs—exposing it, thanks to the freedoms guaranteed by democracy. It’s a long road, but it’s a vector. And I dare say: most of us citizens no longer tolerate it.

And if you think that in a communist state everyone will be equal, you’re deeply delusional. There will always be those who feast while others starve. In Soviet times, our food stores were nearly empty, but Communist Party leaders lived comfortably—they had their own special access to luxury.

And unlike those obsessed with political correctness, I’ll say it bluntly: not all people are equal—and never will be. I don’t mean this in a racist way, but in a social one. A person’s upbringing has a huge effect on their life. We all have different talents, different degrees of willpower, different levels of determination. Some confront problems; others run from them. That alone shapes our lives. So if you think some utopian ideology will magically make your life better, you’re in for a rude awakening.

Yes, in Soviet times, we were all “equal.” Equally poor and unfree. You could drink your life away without worrying about losing your job—because there would always be another one, where you’d pretend to work and they’d pretend to pay you. That was the system.

At least in a democracy, you have a chance. You’re free to pursue what you want. If you have skills and the will to work, you can earn good money. Just don’t be lazy. Opportunities exist. And the democratic system, for all its flaws, doesn’t stand in your way the same way communism did.

Everything I said about equality and inequality doesn’t mean I believe we shouldn’t care about vulnerable people. A society—if it’s truly a society—must care for its vulnerable and those in poor health. And I think Europe, to a certain extent, is genuinely trying to do that.

In the end, we ourselves often stand in the way of our own happiness. No political system is perfect, but so far, democracy is the best we’ve got. Northern and Central Europe are proof—they’re doing well.

And I’ll tell you this: if you chase after communism, you’ll lose everything you have and end up in the same dumpster of history as those before you. Because, like it or not, money doesn’t grow on trees.
 
I agree with the above. Capitalism has many, many flaws, but it's still a better system than socialism. If you've had the opportunity to live under both, it's truly difficult to choose the latter. Romanticizing socialism is usually the domain of the younger generation, and I personally wonder how much of this is a result of a lack of awareness and how much of it is the result of decades of Russian propaganda.
 
We, the people from beyond the Iron Curtain, don’t just believe—we see it with our own eyes. Lithuania has never lived better, economically speaking. Sure, after declaring independence, we had to go through all the painful “side effects” of systemic change: russia’s economic blockade, deep poverty, and in the 1990s–2000s, the rise of violent criminal gangs. But we had a direction and a goal. We chose to go toward Europe—to become Europe (notably Northern Europe). Euro-integration began, reforms were made, and over time, the gangs were brought under control. We joined the EU and NATO. Step by step, things improved. Our emigrants—many of whom worked in the UK, later in Norway, Denmark, and elsewhere—are now more often returning home than leaving.

I don’t idealize anything, but Lithuania—and democratic Eastern Europe as a whole—lives much, much better today. Of course, you’ll always find people here who’ll say otherwise, and yes, you’ll occasionally see someone rummaging through trash bins. Pensioners want bigger pensions (which are indexed every year), teachers and medics want higher salaries—understandably so. There’s never enough money for everyone. But Lithuania is thriving. That’s not even up for debate.

So when I see some of you clinging to the dream of communism, I’m just… stunned.

If corruption is still thriving in your country, then you must elect those who will fight it. It won’t happen overnight, but change begins with outrage—from ordinary people. You can’t keep voting for the same corrupt politicians and expect different results. If your law enforcement is rotten to the core, then yes, your society has a serious problem. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed. The demand for change must be loud and constant.

Of course, my country isn’t free of corruption either. But now it’s mostly “under the carpet,” and journalists are doing their jobs—exposing it, thanks to the freedoms guaranteed by democracy. It’s a long road, but it’s a vector. And I dare say: most of us citizens no longer tolerate it.

And if you think that in a communist state everyone will be equal, you’re deeply delusional. There will always be those who feast while others starve. In Soviet times, our food stores were nearly empty, but Communist Party leaders lived comfortably—they had their own special access to luxury.

And unlike those obsessed with political correctness, I’ll say it bluntly: not all people are equal—and never will be. I don’t mean this in a racist way, but in a social one. A person’s upbringing has a huge effect on their life. We all have different talents, different degrees of willpower, different levels of determination. Some confront problems; others run from them. That alone shapes our lives. So if you think some utopian ideology will magically make your life better, you’re in for a rude awakening.

Yes, in Soviet times, we were all “equal.” Equally poor and unfree. You could drink your life away without worrying about losing your job—because there would always be another one, where you’d pretend to work and they’d pretend to pay you. That was the system.

At least in a democracy, you have a chance. You’re free to pursue what you want. If you have skills and the will to work, you can earn good money. Just don’t be lazy. Opportunities exist. And the democratic system, for all its flaws, doesn’t stand in your way the same way communism did.

Everything I said about equality and inequality doesn’t mean I believe we shouldn’t care about vulnerable people. A society—if it’s truly a society—must care for its vulnerable and those in poor health. And I think Europe, to a certain extent, is genuinely trying to do that.

In the end, we ourselves often stand in the way of our own happiness. No political system is perfect, but so far, democracy is the best we’ve got. Northern and Central Europe are proof—they’re doing well.

And I’ll tell you this: if you chase after communism, you’ll lose everything you have and end up in the same dumpster of history as those before you. Because, like it or not, money doesn’t grow on trees.
I visited Vilnius last year (fantastic city by the way) and whilst there I visited the Museum of Occupations and Freedom Fights, which is housed in the former KGB headquarters. It was both striking and chilling seeing the Soviet torture chambers and execution room there, with the bullet holes still visible in the wall from where prisoners were shot through the head. I also went on a walking tour of the city based on its Soviet history, the gentleman giving the tour was in his 50s and so had grown up under the Soviet rule, it was clear that he had nothing but utter contempt for the former regime and its depravities. It is so laughable and pathetic when you see the (thankfully small in number but usually comfortable and middle-class) Westerners in the present day advocating for communism.
 
I'll keep this brief:

The opposite of communism isn't democracy, it's capitalism. Democratic communist states can exist. We are talking about economic systems.

I haven't seen anyone on this board advocate for state communism so this entire discussion seems simply like, ah, what's the word? Oh right, virtue signaling.

Many of the arguments like "under comminism a few prosper while the rest starves" are laughable because that same exact thing is happening world wide under capitalism. Look at poverty rates in the largest economies, the picture is quite stark.

And the constant shoehorning of anti-political correctness and "anti-woke" jabs in a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with economic systems shows signs of deep immaturity, insecurity and outright ignorance.

And before the typical accusations come flying: I'm not in favor of communism. I prefer socialism. (Not that this will stop those who use communist as a curse word lol)
 
Last edited:
I agree with the above. Capitalism has many, many flaws, but it's still a better system than socialism. If you've had the opportunity to live under both, it's truly difficult to choose the latter. Romanticizing socialism is usually the domain of the younger generation, and I personally wonder how much of this is a result of a lack of awareness and how much of it is the result of decades of Russian propaganda.
Socialism ≠ Communism
 
Just to note that for high (and all really) incomes one takes more money home after tax in China than UK, France, Denmark etc.

As per ChatGPT, for 1,000,000 USD, in China one takes home 560,000 USD, in UK 555,000 USD, in France 430,000 USD, in Denmark 455,000 USD.

In Hong Kong this is 840,000 USD and in Singapore 770,000 USD.

I fail to see how a country when one looses half their income or more to taxes can be called a capitalist country.
 
Just to note that for high (and all really) incomes one takes more money home after tax in China than UK, France, Denmark etc.

As per ChatGPT, for 1,000,000 USD, in China one takes home 560,000 USD, in UK 555,000 USD, in France 430,000 USD, in Denmark 455,000 USD.

In Hong Kong this is 840,000 USD and in Singapore 770,000 USD.

I fail to see how a country when one looses half their income or more to taxes can be called a capitalist country.
Since you asked ChatGPT A, you might as well ask B. Here's the answer.

You're blending two different concepts: capitalism and taxation levels. A country can absolutely be capitalist while having high taxes—because capitalism refers primarily to the economic system, not the tax rate.


Here's the breakdown:​


  • Capitalism means that most of the means of production are privately owned, and markets determine prices, supply, and demand. Individuals and businesses can own property, invest capital, and operate for profit. Denmark, France, and similar nations all fit that definition.
  • High taxation doesn’t cancel out capitalism. It simply means the government collects more revenue to fund things like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social safety nets.




(And besides, corporations and wealthy people are taxed less than the average person because capital and profits are taxed extremely low in many applicable countries, like Sweden for instance. And most people pay in Sweden pay around 30% in taxes on their wages. It's a progressive tax system.)
 
You're blending two different concepts: capitalism and taxation levels. A country can absolutely be capitalist while having high taxes—because capitalism refers primarily to the economic system, not the tax rate.

I get that, but my argument is that when you are taxed above say 15% or above 30% including social security, you enter socialist territories.
By taxing at such high levels, states naturally grow gargantuan and subsequently end up intervene in the market, reducing significantly the extent to which prices, supply, and demand are determined by free-market forces.
To be clear, I actually enjoyed paying taxes when I lived in France because the public services I received in return were excellent. But to call France a truly capitalist country -that’s a joke to me.
I already gave examples of perfectly functioning states /territories with great education and health care systems that taxes are in reasonable levels.
 
I get that, but my argument is that when you are taxed above say 15% or above 30% including social security, you enter socialist territories.
Living in Sweden, which has gone from what has been described as the most leftist of western democracies, to the probably most americanized economy/market (and ever decreasing social safety nets and infrastructure austerity) in Europe in just a few decades, I really don't see it (and your argument would include the U.S. for the most part, just to be clear). To me, it sounds more like you're making the point that anything non-libertarian is socialist.
 
Last edited:
Living in Sweden, which has gone from what has been described as the most leftist of western democracies, to the probably most americanized economy/market (and ever decreasing social safety nets and infrastructure austerity) in Europe in just a few decades

Do you have some facts to back up this?
From what I know Sweden is still a social benefits heaven (thus can’t be too capitalistic), i.e., one of the most desired destination for refugees.
Or it might be that it used to be super left and now that is less, it had a huge effect in locals’ perception.

To me, it sounds more like you're making the point that anything non-libertarian is socialist.

Not in the sense American libertarians do, who call Democrats Marxists.
More in the sense that the vast majority of us live in a hybrid system, thus I sometimes get triggered when I hear people especially Europeans talk about Capitalism, like if they had a true taste of it.
 
Do you have some facts to back up this?
From what I know Sweden is still a social benefits heaven (thus can’t be too capitalistic), i.e., one of the most desired destination for refugees.
Or it might be that it used to be super left and now that is less, it had a huge effect in locals’ perception.



Not in the sense American libertarians do, who call Democrats Marxists.
More in the sense that the vast majority of us live in a hybrid system, thus I sometimes get triggered when I hear people especially Europeans talk about Capitalism, like if they had a true taste of it.
Here's a few bullet points off of the top of my head:
* Sweden has subjected education to the market. There is no other country on earth that subjects the education system to free market principles on the tax payer's dime and lets for profit companies run schools. How do they create their profits? They are funded by tax money. By low wages for teachers, fewer qualified teachers, by essentially turning away special needs, through general austerity they create profits. They also crowd the market and thus wreck the economy for the public owned schools - who then receive additional funds, which in turn means the municipalities have to pay equal amounts of money to the corporate owned schools who don't need them, because that's what the law states. Vicous circle.

* Sweden has fully or partially privatized almost all previously public owned companies and left more and more to the market- and New Public Management (running public companies and departments like private companies have dominate for three decades)

*Unions have increasingly less teeth (while still being fundamental for Sweden's job market model, but with slowly diminishing relevance).

* Sweden has an extremely high billionaires/population ratio and increasing numbers of capital investements firms

* Sweden's food chain is essentially an oligopoly with three corporations controlling everything, stiffing competition and in practice suspending free-market principles which is historically a bi-product of unregulated capitalism.

* The banking system has turned very capitalist with far less regulation, public housing sold at losses resulting in Sweden's households being highly indebted

* Public health centers were sold to private investors for virtually nothing almost 20 years ago (and like the schools are subjected to free market principles on the tax payer's dime), in line with right-wing economic ideology.
* Sweden has extremely low taxes on capital and capital gains. Sweden has far lower taxes on profits than on wages, which means many wealthy people just take out profits instead of wages. You can just start a company, bill, and take the profits out. That is certainly not "socialist".

* Social safety nets have been greatly diminished. Unemployment benefits are set to be further diminished any day now, and social welfare payments is usually very low, despite the few extreme cases being used to scapegoat and rationlize further cuts.

* This is all while Sweden has one of the highest unemployment levels in Europe.


https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Jb8pAX/extrem-sverige-ar-ett-mal-inte-en-biprodukt here's an opinion from an economic journalist that touches upon some of this stuff. Use google translate.




And there's nothing that really states that capitalism means no taxes, no safety nets - at least not in practice. So, from your point of view, where capitalism essentially means no public assistance or welfare and companies can do what they will with little or no regulation, you are correct we live in a "hybrid system", but again, capitalism refers to the market, not to social programs or how you fund infratructure.
 
Last edited:
@Yax This model (Sweden before) is great but it ends up being abusive, i.e., what you mentioned about education in your first point.

Of course Capitalism means taxes and welfare and all but in a balanced way. If you pay 50% ~60% taxes altogether which is what is happening in most Europe and still not having good services, the state becomes gigantic, a highly inefficient beast which ends up being no Capitalism and no Democracy.
The examples of Hong Kong and Singapore show us how it’s done at least the Capitalist part.

It’s the same with Communism, great principals but the application was lousy so it became a monster.
 
@Yax This model (Sweden before) is great but it ends up being abusive, i.e., what you mentioned about education in your first point.
So this is a consequence of economic neo-liberalism, of americanization, and I agree - it rips the fabric of nations after a certain point. We see that everywhere in Europe, with a sense of hopelessness over a system not really working for your benefit. Now, I wouldn't want to live in the 1970's Sweden either, which was beaurocratic, bloated, with little room for individualism and the perception of "the government knows best", even for personal decisions. I do believe most things regarding how we organize the society in Sweden were better 20 years ago. I think we're in a state of things progressing and regressing simultaneously, but when the core services stop functioning properly, you become a bit blinded to the positive progressions.
 
Last edited:
20 years ago was better anywhere man!!
Recently I have 2 thoughts. That the turning point for Europe was the Iraq war, the last time our leaders used their spine. From then all went downhill, slowly but steadily. This is more or less 20 years.
And that the current era of Europe was somehow built around Russia and it will possibly end that way. NATO was formed to keep US in Europe and protect us from them. Then EU prospered partly because we didn't have to fight between each other and spend much on security. Not to mention the cheap gas Germany was receiving. Now under the pressing of de-industrialisation which partly happens again because of Russia, we are trying to revive our industries by militarisation.
In the end the collision seems inevitable and the new era will rise after a painful crash.
I'm pretty sure the new Europe will be way more realpolitik, down to earth and sovereign that currently is. In 20 years from now I don't see us being attached to the US as slavishly as we are today. Depending on the next day we may even end up adversaries.
 
Back
Top