The Counter-Factual History Thread

[Oerwinde]

Heres mine.

 

What if the French hadn't aided the 13 colonies in the American Revolution? Or alternately, what if British military hadn't been occupied fighting the french in Europe during the revolution?

 

 

Also, the way I read it, France started Word War 1. Stupid Canadian history books.

[Jurgenaut]

Also, the way I read it, France started Word War 1. Stupid Canadian history books.

Well, france had lost some land to Prussia (later part of Germany) in the 1870s, and they were keen on reclaiming that. The reason for France's involvement was their alliance with Russia (yup, they became friends after napoleon had lost his army to the russian winter). The treaty said that if Germany acted aggressively towards either part, they were to mobilize against germany.

 

Russia wanted to defend Serbia, a slavic nation (like Russia). Austria-Hungary was had a lot of different peoples as citizens, and they didn't mix well. In some part, assimilating Serbia was meant to pacify the slavic population of Austria-Hungary.

 

Germany and France had planned for another war long before this. The Schlieffen plan was taken into use by Moltke the younger (but he chose to overlook the flaws therein, which Schlieffen himself had been made aware of). France had their Plan XVII.

 

So basically, Austria-Hungary wants to bash Serbia, which has help from Russia. A-H has help from Germany. Germany launches an attack according to the Schlieffen plan (through Belgium, a neutral country, and then south into France, this would lead them around Frech fortifications), but diverts too much forces to guard the eastern border (where Russia is coming). Russia attacks from the east but get the butts handed to them. England has been playing hide and seek and has a secret alliance with the french.

 

Blah blah Turkey joins the "axis", Italy joins the france-russia-britain in spite of their treaty with Germany and Austria-Hungary. The US joins much later (because of sunk american ships and rumours of Germany approaching Mexico for alliance and u-boat bases). Australian and New Zeeland forces also helped the allies (ANSAC).

 

 

Basically, I feel that the world have gotten more civilized during the 1900s, but if that is because of the WWs or in spite of them, I cannot tell.

 

Book tip: The First World War by John Keegan. It explains the reasons for the war quite well, but other things are mentioned less (like Gas usage).

[J.E. Sawyer]

Ah. Americans. Your perspective on Empire is so....cute. Especially as you're the biggest friggin' Empire-saurus since Rome. You just don't care to admit it.

****, please.

 

The British Empire was far larger and spanned a greater distance than the Roman Empire.

 

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif

 

http://www.makedonija.info/roman.gif

 

Whoop-ti-do.

 

While the United States certainly exerts a stronger level of control over the world than any single government in history, the United States has no need for a traditional, knock-over-your-government-and-plant-our-own-people-there-empire.

 

Your peeps are still, in my mind, the undisputed champions of that pasttime.

[Cantousent]

I disagree with the assessment that there would have been a proscription later under Caesar. First of all, it would have made more sense for him to follow such a course of action upon entering Italy and then Rome. His "invasion" was largely bloodless. Second of all, he let the very people who murdered him live. As a matter of fact, the Consulship was ratained as were the forms of Republican government. Of course, the Senate outlive the Empire, even as a sort of city council.

 

There was a much worse proscription under Octavian and Marc Antony than under Sulla at any rate. Cicero didn't die of old age in his sleep. Sulla had hundreds killed, Octavian had thousands killed and Caesar spared vast numbers of people. It was a lesson hard learned for Octavian.

 

As a matter of fact, Caesar was far by and large gentle with his opponents. Well, maybe not with all those dead or enslaved Gauls. *shrug*

[Sammael]

Except for that one lonely Gaulish village, surrounded by four Roman camps...

 

The reference is probably lost on the Americans, where Asterix is not popular.

[Monte Carlo]

Sawyer, who cares what type of Empire it is? It might not be the prosletizing Christian version of the late British Empire but if it looks, walks and smells like an Empire then it is.

 

The reference to Rome was deliberate. The British Empire depended on trade and and a complex network of relationships with client power groups within the different countries it administered. Rome, on the other hand, used a much less elegant model....very much like the US. As Ferguson points out, the US divides the world into military protectorates (CENTCOM for example), talks of "full spectrum dominance" and has mind-bogglingly powerful force projection using nuke-laden carrier battlegroups. The remarkable thing is how discreet all this is, as the real schwerpunkt is the dollar and globalised consumer culture that people generally seem to want and enjoy from Iceland to Georgia to Hong Kong.

 

The US model is far removed from the British Imperial modus operandi, until Iraq, of course. Which the US ballsed up royally because it stubbornly refuses to accept it's imperialistic obligations. US politics, both Democrat and Republican is still too tied up in some cheezy Minutemen-in-the-woods-shooting-at-the-nasty Redcoats myth (which is why you were so comprehensively suckered into supporting terrorists like the IRA in the 70's, 80's and early 90's) to face up to reality.

 

Before anybody says, "hey, Monte, I didn't realise you were a fully signed-up member of the Michael Moore theory of US hegemony" let me say I'm not. I think an America that finally accepts the responsibility of post-superpower flagbearer for liberal democracy would be a Good Thing. Not an uber-hawkish, neoconservative "bomb 'em back into their mud huts" flagbearer, but a thoughtful, benign power that trod carefully and took it's power seriously. Give two men a rifle; one could be a mature, thoughtful hunter who only took (with respect) his prey only when he needed to. The other might climb up into a clock tower on campus and go nuts. Which one is America at the moment?

 

My interesting counterfactual point, therefore, might be this; what would have happened had Bill Clinton developed some testes during his second administration and developed a pro-active, unashamedly interventionist foreign policy that took the threat of Islamist terrorism and failed states seriously in the mid-late 90's?

 

For me, Clinton was the apogee of smug, insular, head-in-the-sand American foreign policy. I know it's fashionable to knock Dubya, and bejaysus I think Iraq is royally buggered, but I think retrospectively he'll be seen as a tough, smart (that's right, sport fans!) statesman who finally pulled back the joystick marked "US foreign policy" and started getting to grips with the post-superpower 21st Century.

 

Cheers

MC

[EnderAndrew]

I'm sorry I've been absentee as of late. Real life can be a pain some days. I love these types of questions.

 

1. What would have happened if Martin Luther had recanted, as requested, by Rome?

 

Martin Luther had already made his points. He begun the underground translation of the Bible. And arguably, the Calvanists really kick-started the Protestant revolution though Luther was more on the right track. However, I don't think Luther recanting would have made a big difference.

 

The Church of England was greated to satiate the whims of a King. It had nothing to do with true reform. The Catholic Church split the "New World" up between Spain and Portugal, and no one paid the Church mind. The Church's power was invalidated. And the Puritans who left for the New World didn't have Rome looking over their shoulders.

 

And despite Protestanism and the Church losing much of it's political power, Catholicism remains VERY popular world-wide. I don't really see a huge difference.

 

2. The Germans persuade the Mexicans to open a second front against the US in 1943. Discuss.

 

In the early stages of WWII, the United States very much wanted nothing to do with it. Some historians claim that the United States had broken Japanese code and knew Pearl Harbor was coming. This is debated. Some say we knew a large attack was coming, but didn't know the particulars. What I do know, is that we ordered the base on holiday, and left our fleet relatively undefended. The Arizona sank, but it was about to be decomissioned. We now had an excuse to build a navy we couldn't afford before WWII started.

 

Mexico's military has never been all that impressive. Even after Pearl Harbor, not all Americans really supported sending troops to battle Germany in Europe. We had a bad taste in our mouth with all the troops lost in WWI. If Mexico tried to invade US soil, you better believe this country would have been more unified in the war support. Perhaps fewer troops would have gone over to Europe, but the numbers of troops weren't the real key.

 

Omaha Beach is a fine example of this. Instead of allowing a small number of Marines to take the beach using stealth, an Army General decides to send large number of soldiers to the slaughter. We take the beach, but only by having a large number of troops serve as fodder for the machine guns. If push had come to shove, a small number of troops using different tactics could have achieved the same result.

 

Similiarly, large troop tactics were used in Beleau Woods unsuccessfully, and ultimately a small number of troops liberated the woods (and thusly Paris) from the threat of Germany. One could contend that fewer troops would have shipped for Europe, but overall I think more people would have signed up for the war effort.

 

3. Eisenhower agrees with Churchill that the Allies should take Berlin before Stalin, in order to prevent the dictator carving up huge swathes of central Europe. Would World War 3 have been inevitable?

 

This is a good one. However, I'm picturing the Korean War here.

 

Let's say Eisenhower pushes for Berlin. Stalin wasn't about to give up on this. We tested the water briefly, and he wasn't budging. The start of new hostilities, with our allies none the less would have sent the American public into a panic. Fighting wouldn't last too long before Eisenhower would be forced to back out. The only question I see is how the fighting goes in the first place. If he took Berlin to begin with, I see a compromise of splitting Berlin as Eisenhower backs out. If Stalin has Berlin by means of force, it stays that way.

[EnderAndrew]

And for the record, there have been many great Empires in history. However, consider this.

 

With the Egyptian Empire, everyone was converted to be Egyptian. The Babylonian Empire controlled their whole known world, and everyone was Babylonian. When the Greeks and Romans conquered, they subsumed or replaced culture.

 

When England established the British Empire, they didn't completely replace the nationality or culture of the people there. Historial Empires also lacked instant global communications. It's hard to rule a location thousands of miles away.

 

The Babylonian Empire is the most underrated Empire in history, and the American Empire is a unique beast forged by economics.

[triCritical]

The Babylonian Empire is the most underrated Empire in history, and the American Empire is a unique beast forged by economics.

I would also like to point out that we have unprecedented power in space and air too.

[Naso]

Maybe not a proscription per-se but I think people of such natures as Brutus and the rest would not have survived were Caesar to have. As for clemency, Augustus is the typical example, but my vague recollection of Suetonius tells me, (if it's even credible), that it was a pretty quick about-face once he had completed the war and no longer hung to vengeance as his modus operandi. I'm not entirely clear on the breakdown of the factions under Julius but that Octavian had somewhat credible opposition in both Antony and Sextus Pompeius makes me think that for Julius to have held power he would have had to take out some people.

[Cantousent]

The thing that strikes me is how deft Augustus really was. He wasn't much of a leader for killing people indiscriminantly. He had no problems having people killed, but he spared people if there weren't some compelling reason to kill them. Caesar's boy clearly had to go, but ol' Marcus' family was spared.

 

I think counter-factual history is interesting but entirely irrelevant in understanding events. We can only understand history based on what actually happened rather than what we think might have happened. Of course, that's only one thought about history. I'll tell you one thing, however, hindsight is far from 20/20.

 

A good example is this... have you ever played a strategy computer game? Now, the variables in a computer game are far less than those from real life. Save something like Civilization and play 20 turns. Then go back and make those changes that you think will improve your game. It just doesn't always work out the way hindsight says it will.

[Monte Carlo]

I think counter-factual history is interesting but entirely irrelevant in understanding events

 

Well, I think it is fair to say that many historians find CF history a tiresome parlour game. However, I don't think it's entirely irrelevant. You have to be able to have a sound grasp of an event and it's variables to extrapolate a credible counter-factual scenario in the first place! Considering these might in fact help you understand, reconsider or re-evaluate something you thought you already understood.

 

Take World War One and the numerous counter-factual scenarios that are discussed about it. The mobilization scenario and the "what ifs?" surrounding it can only enhance our understanding of the economy, technology and politics of the period. When you factor in some comparative history it gets better. For example, compare (A) the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, (B) The Nazi invasion of the Sudetenland and © The Nazi invasion of Poland and consider them in the context of crisis management, diplomacy and what would have happened if none of them had occured? I think a meaty discussion on that one would require, and probably develop, bags of understanding of the events!

 

Cheers

MC

[JohnDoe]

Now that is interesting, imagining a world where China and the US were close allies in a world war....

Would they have been allies, if Germany controlled Europe and attacked either one? Perhaps the one who was not attacked would ally with Germany...

[Cantousent]

Perhaps irrelevant is the wrong word. I think it serves a purpose for a variety of reasons. It encourages strong arguments in a discussion, if nothing else. The only point I'm making is that counter-factual history is a weak argument for explaining why events happened. It's a great tool for examining what might have happened and then isolating specific factors in the event.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sawyer, who cares what type of Empire it is?

I guess you do, since you point out Rome, skip the British Empire, and go straight to the U.S.

 

The British Empire depended on trade and and a complex network of relationships with client power groups within the different countries it administered. Rome, on the other hand, used a much less elegant model.

 

Huh? The term "client-king" can very specifically be used to refer to the setups that Rome initially had on Britain. Mix-ups over that nonsense led directly to the Iceni revolt.

 

In deployment range and overall range of influence, the British Empire was far more like the U.S. than Rome. Either we get to split hairs over types of empires or we don't. I see more similarity in range and type of influence between the British Empire and the U.S. than the U.S. and Rome.

 

The US model is far removed from the British Imperial modus operandi, until Iraq, of course. Which the US ballsed up royally because it stubbornly refuses to accept it's imperialistic obligations.

 

Look, if we're receiving more than a) Jack and b) s*** in imperial benefits from this mess, I'd be more than willing to state that we have a greater responsibility. But seriously, we could magically suck all the oil out of Iraq right now and it wouldn't make a big dent in the cost, financial and otherwise, of this war.

 

(which is why you were so comprehensively suckered into supporting terrorists like the IRA in the 70's, 80's and early 90's)

 

I am reminded of Die Hard.

 

Big Johnson: Just like f***in' Saigon ain't it, Slick?

Little Johnson: I was in junior high, d**khead.

 

Post-1993, feel free to include me among the suckered.

 

I think an America that finally accepts the responsibility of post-superpower flagbearer for liberal democracy would be a Good Thing.

 

Okay, before I tackle this, I'd like to say that I don't really give a rat's ass who finds what country guilty of what. I don't have any big interest in making America seem great and other countries seem bad.

 

That said, there is no way that Europe and the U.S. are going to see eye-to-eye on this at any time in the near future. The U.S. possesses such a massive amount of military might beyond Europe that it is silly -- especially in deployment capability/range. Our European allies have a grand total of six carriers. The stars of this fleet being the three low-capacity U.K. carriers and the one big leaky French carrier. Christ, U.S. Army Europe's armored division is larger than the entire British armored division, and the U.K. outstrips the other European countries.

 

So the U.S., by far, is more capable of being the superhero of "liberal democracy", European powers very often disagree as to when the U.S. should be that superhero and when they should not. For purposes of this discussion, who is right and who is wrong are irrelevant concerns. It should simply be stated that there is not a lot of concord on these issues, that makes "stepping up" very difficult for the U.S. to do in many cases.

 

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

[EnderAndrew]

So there!

 

Look. Alot of people claim that the United States is this Empire that secretly controls the governments of umpteen countries. The United States has in the past assisted several times with regime changes. That doesn't mean we control those countries. We put the Taliban in power, and they sure liked us, didn't they? We put Saddam in power, and he wasn't exactly our puppet.

 

If the US had this empire of vast reach where we controlled the governments of all these countries, I doubt we'd have this horrible trade deficit. Some of these countries have changed tariffs in the US's favor, but perhaps that has something to do with scratching each other's back rather than direct control.

 

Furthermore, the US has dumped money into several countries building them up, and many have become financially wealthy and relatively indepedent of US interests. After WWII, we stepped into Germany and rebuilt factories so they could pump out cars. We rebuilt homes, and cities. What did the US get out of it? Is Germany a puppet state of the US? Hardly.

 

The US public seems relatively content to be as isolationist as possible. If they had their way, they'd pretend the rest of the world didn't exist. As a nation, I don't think we're have as imperialistic as everyone wants to make us out to be. Our wealth and military might put us in the position of being a superpower. I'd put China in the same category.

 

China used a nuclear demonstration as a threat to Taiwain to elect Chinese-friendly leaders. China has practiced transmigration (a small step removed from genocide) and has a horrid human rights record. They have no respect for international trade laws, and invade countries at will.

 

The world is so busy hating the US, that I don't think they pay any attention to what China has been up to.

[mkreku]

China used a nuclear demonstration as a threat to Taiwain to elect Chinese-friendly leaders.  China has practiced transmigration (a small step removed from genocide) and has a horrid human rights record.  They have no respect for international trade laws, and invade countries at will.

Actually, most people believe USA has nuclear arms too. American nuclear arms are not there to water the flowers or feed the children either, you know. Did you know that the death penalty is against human rights? Albania is the only country in Europe that allows their own governments to murder people. I won't even get started on invading countries at will or "no respect for international trade laws" (but you should read the book No Logo, by Naomi Klein). Noone is claiming China is "better" in any way than the US. The difference is that China never claimed to be "the lighthouse of democracy of the world". It's the hypocrisy that's the real killer.

[EnderAndrew]

There is a difference between owning a nuclear arsenal, and actually detonating a small nuke as a threat to a country.

 

China openly pirates billions and billions of dollars in IP every day. The United States has a trade deficit. We send business out to other countries, and purchase more foreign products than we ship out. We certainly don't just steal products the way that China does.

 

The United States does have the death penalty, and that's a seperate argument. When guys like Timothy McVeigh bombs a building with a day-care and murders children, I have no qualms putting him to the electric chair.

 

In China, prisoners are tortured and denied due process. In China, there isn't even Freedom of Speech. If you say the wrong thing, you can be imprisioned or killed for it. There is a WORLD of difference between the two countries. China is slaughtering people whole-sale because of ethnicity, and trying to breed certain peoples out of existance. The United States liberated 25 million people, and it stepping back and giving them their freedom.

 

How can you compare the two? Logically, you can't.

 

Human Rights Watch - China

China Human Rights Fact Sheet

China and Human Rights

[mkreku]

There is a difference between owning a nuclear arsenal, and actually detonating a small nuke as a threat to a country.

Only one nation in the world has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation, and it wasn't China.

China openly pirates billions and billions of dollars in IP every day.  The United States has a trade deficit.  We send business out to other countries, and purchase more foreign products than we ship out.  We certainly don't just steal products the way that China does.

I worked for a small medical company called Radi Medical a few weeks back. They ship vast amounts of medical (patented) equipment to the US. A couple of months back a separate (american) country started taking these products (they are made to be used once, then tossed), cleaning them up, putting their own logo on them and then selling them cheaper than the new (swedish) products. I forgot the name of the bureau that forbid Radi Medical to do this procedure themselves, but allowed the american company to continue selling the used products.

 

I agree: you don't steal products the way China does. But don't believe for a second that the US doesn't steal IP's, the methods are just different. You could really benefit from reading No Logo.

The United States does have the death penalty, and that's a seperate argument.  When guys like Timothy McVeigh bombs a building with a day-care and murders children, I have no qualms putting him to the electric chair.

No matter. It is still a crime against human rights. China is way worse, everyone knows that, but you should really clean up in front of your own door before invading other countries because they're violating human rights (which was one of the reasons the US invaded Iraq, for example).

In China, prisoners are tortured and denied due process.  In China, there isn't even Freedom of Speech.  If you say the wrong thing, you can be imprisioned or killed for it.  There is a WORLD of difference between the two countries.  China is slaughtering people whole-sale because of ethnicity, and trying to breed certain peoples out of existance.  The United States liberated 25 million people, and it stepping back and giving them their freedom.

And I assume you believe the US never tortured any of their prisoners, right? Do you believe O.J. is innocent or rich?

 

I'm not going to sit here and defend China in any way. I just think some of you needs to be reminded that most of what China does, the US does too. And it's very easy to compare, trust me.

[EnderAndrew]

Only one nation in the world has ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation, and it wasn't China.

China Shoots Missles into Water Around Taiwan

This was right after a small nuclear demonstration. China sure used nukes to take over Taiwan. It also wasn't the first or last time China threatened war and invasion if Taiwan tried to maintain independence rather than allow itself to be absorbed into China.

I agree: you don't steal products the way China does. But don't believe for a second that the US doesn't steal IP's, the methods are just different. You could really benefit from reading No Logo.

In all fairness, I haven't read No Logo, and may give it a go. But there remains a huge difference between outright theft and piracy, and what you described. What you described is laws allowing the US to legally sell products, despite the fact that you find the practice questionable. China has no respect for international trade laws.

No matter. It is still a crime against human rights. China is way worse, everyone knows that, but you should really clean up in front of your own door before invading other countries because they're violating human rights (which was one of the reasons the US invaded Iraq, for example).

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about the death penalty. I do respect the sanctity of life, and could consider abolishing the death penalty, but that would also involve lots of prison reform that we need first.

 

Not everyone will accept your definition or claim that using lethal injections on prisoners is a human rights violation. Death row prisoners, or prisoners with life sentences know that things can not really get any worse for them. They prey upon other prisoners. Murder within prisons is not uncommon, along with rape and beatings. By utilizing the death sentence, we not only have another detterent against prisoners already facing life sentences, we remove them from prison populations before they murder again.

 

I could live with a compromise that life-sentence prisoners were already removed from all other prisoners, and lived their life in prison elsewhere. However, this is a huge burden on tax-payer dollars, not only to maintain their lives, but to build seperate prisons to cater to murderers.

And I assume you believe the US never tortured any of their prisoners, right? Do you believe O.J. is innocent or rich?

Someone once said it is far better to let 10 guilty men walk free than to have one innocent man convicted. I think O.J. was clearly guilty. The problem with the case was multi-fold. The LA police and prosecution screwed up royally, and they got a jury that didn't know anything about anything in the name of being impartial. Several of the jurors in exit-interviews said they just discounted DNA evidence because they didn't understand it.

I'm not going to sit here and defend China in any way. I just think some of you needs to be reminded that most of what China does, the US does too. And it's very easy to compare, trust me.

I'll admit this country has past transgressions, and current faults. However, I think the world is so preoccupied with Anti-American sentiments that they overlook the horrors that occur in China.

[mkreku]

I'll admit this country has past transgressions, and current faults.  However, I think the world is so preoccupied with Anti-American sentiments that they overlook the horrors that occur in China.

This is not quite true. There are lots of protest organizations who constantly fight the regime in China, at least in Sweden. Also, China is often mentioned in swedish news, everytime some new horrible story pops up. We hear about the hundreds of thousands of political prisoners held in China just as often as we hear about the 25 million people living in poverty in the US. To me, those are just two different types of victims of a failed government.

 

"What you described is laws allowing the US to legally sell products, despite the fact that you find the practice questionable. China has no respect for international trade laws."

 

Well, the laws that allows them to sell our products used are american laws. They are not international laws. Unfortunately there aren't any defined international laws in this particular case though. China, however, use the exact same argument; "according to our laws we're allowed to do this and that". And it sucks both ways.

[EnderAndrew]

Well, the poverty line in the US is quite different from the poverty line in other countries.

 

The minimum wage in the US is currently $5.15/hr, and talks are in place to raise it above $7.00/hr, which is good. Central America boasts several countries where the AVERAGE wage is something like $0.27/hr.

 

Did you know that you can make more money by not working in this country, than by working in a minimum-wage job? Yep. Welfare and unemployment consider minimum wage to be far enough below poverty, that they'll dole out more than that.

 

The United States does have homeless people, and that's horrible. When I was 14, I struck out on my own, and lived on the streets for a while. I had rich parents, and have seen riches and poverty. I know what it's like to go hungry, and what it's like to live on another's graces. I consider myself blessed for that.

 

A big part of the problem is that the US, and much of the world is built upon capitalism. Capitalism eventually leads to the unequal distribution of wealth. The United States features a variety of socialistic programs like welfare. These programs need reform, but the numbers of 25 million people living in poverty are biased numbers. They live quite well compared to people around the rest of the world.

 

And frankly, I don't know what the rest of the world is like, but a BIG part of the problem in the US is drug addiction. It increases crime, and ruins people's lives. When I did volunteer work at the local homeless shelter, I'd say that 90% of the people in the shelter had addiction problems that led to them being homeless. We need to address the serious nature of addiction, and do more to combat it.

[taks]

A big part of the problem is that the US, and much of the world is built upon capitalism. Capitalism eventually leads to the unequal distribution of wealth.

???

 

this isn't a problem of capitalism per se. if we actually implemented capitalism without social programs, i.e. welfare, the problem would not be nearly as severe as witnessed. believe it or not, charitible contributions increase dramatically in more capitalist societies because they typically aren't burdened with high taxes...

 

oh, also, in other systems, such as with socialism, the money balance is there, but less noticeable. oddly, it's even worse. the problem i'm referring to? particularly the average joe, regardless of skills or ability ALL make the same money... but the rich are still there, even richer than in a capitalist society because they control everything. there is no middle class when social programs become the norm... socialism leads to the haves and the have nots... period. at least with capitalism, you and i and every other average joe has a chance.

 

taks

[EnderAndrew]

this isn't a problem of capitalism per se.  if we actually implemented capitalism without social programs, i.e. welfare, the problem would not be nearly as severe as witnessed.  believe it or not, charitible contributions increase dramatically in more capitalist societies because they typically aren't burdened with high taxes...

 

Assuming my high school textbooks had any accurary, countries like Sweeden have far higher taxes. Taxes are also higher in Canada than the US. But they have socialized health care, etc.

 

Bill Gates never gave a penny away until it was financially necessary for him to have charity contributions for tax deductions. Then he donated Microsoft software and computers to kids. He didn't give food or shelter to the homeless. He doesn't believe in it.

 

Certain people choose to be generous when they are wealthy, are others do not. On the flipside of Gates is someone like Rockefeller, or Omaha's own Warren Buffet. And I'm not aware of any country in the world really more capitalist than the US. I know capitalism is common in the world these days, but could you point out an example for me?

 

oh, also, in other systems, such as with socialism, the money balance is there, but less noticeable.  oddly, it's even worse.  the problem i'm referring to?  particularly the average joe, regardless of skills or ability ALL make the same money... but the rich are still there, even richer than in a capitalist society because they control everything.  there is no middle class when social programs become the norm... socialism leads to the haves and the have nots... period.  at least with capitalism, you and i and every other average joe has a chance.

 

I'm confused. How does socialism lead to have and have nots, when we all have the same? And I'm not advocating strict socialism here either. I think the only time strict socialism really worked out was briefly under Marshall Tito in what was Yugoslavia. Socialism was a perfect compromise to keep at bay the racial hatred that plagued the short-lived country. Rarely in world history were those lands united peacibly, and when they were, they quickly fell apart.

 

Under Tito, resources and land were allocated equally amongst the varying ethnic groups to keep people from warring or screaming favortism. With his death, so fell apart the nation.

 

I digress.

 

I think pure socialism is bad, because it fails to encourage people to succeed or innovate. Capitalism is also based upon competition and specialization. People forget these things. The United States problem is we insist on staying in certain global markets where we fail, and are creating a deficit. The United States needs to continue to focus on markets where we specialize and excel, such as intellectual properties and entertainment.

 

I think our socialistic programs that we blend in with capitalist should work together, nor against each other. Our socialistic programs should work towards fixing problems, and bringing people back into the work place. We should target the problems that keep people from working, and focus on a strong workforce.

[taks]

Assuming my high school textbooks had any accurary, countries like Sweeden have far higher taxes.