How this started

This Blog started like this: Carline had sent us an e-mail, referring among other things, to some of the 20 year celebrations going on in Germany. To this I responded:

This is Eric.
Just refreshed my memory of the Lepsig demonstration at Wekapedia. I do remember the growing demonstrations fostered by the churches allowing the demonstrators to use their facilities. The question intrigued me then, and intrigues me still: tyrants can only be tyrants if the chain of command down to the soldier pulling the trigger is intact. Why is it that at certain times that chain of command is intact: soldiers follow orders, people die and the tyrant remains -- Hitler, Stalin, Churchill (who order the bombing of civilian targets in Germany), Tianamin Square, Bush? And why is it that at other times the orders are not followed, somebody breaks the chain of command, and tyrants topple. It would seem to me the chain should be broken much more often than it is, but history tells us it only happens rarely.

What's happening there Nov. 9? Isn't that when THE WALL came down? I doubt that it will make the evening new here.

Mary and I went to see Michael Moore's "Capitalism - a love story" last week. Well worth watching, I would say. He ends with American congresswoman Kaptur saying that there has been a financial coup d'etat. That congress is no longer in charge, Wall street is. I could go on, but won't. You need to see this movie. That tyrant may be treating you and me reasonably well now, but that is not true of everyone, and may not always be true of us.

Carline responded:

Now response to Uncle Eric and I invited Karl to this too:

Thank you for your interest.

The reason the protests finally worked in DDR was because partly thanks to Reagan the system was bankrupt and completely kaputt and also because of Gorbachev. The protests only worked because there were already changes in other countries and the GDR lost the backing of Gorbachev. This was a big difference from the East Berlin uprising on June 17,1953 when the Soviet army came in full force on 40,000 protestors and strikes across East Germany.. Many were killed and arrested.

I plan to write more about these 1989 protests on my blog on Friday since that was another significant protest day and will keep posting to Nov 9 and after on this theme of reunification. I also have posted other links better than Wikipedia on the prayer meetings. I know Wikipedia is often the first & best source that comes up, it frustrates me.

I don’t know of any events planned on Nov 9, I am quite isolated here but I am sure there will be a big party in Berlin. If I am not able to attend any event nearby then just watching on tv how they celebrate in Berlin will be special.

Did you know the system was so kaput that the GDR actually sold prisoner’s freedom to the BRD? Over 3 million DM was paid out, thank goodness for those whose freedom was bought.

I think it all has to do with who is in power at the time and at reunification time the right leaders were in office, you know I believe that if there had been a socialist in power in West Germany and not CDU Kohl and FDP Genscher as Foreign minister, reunification and capitalism in East Germany would not have happened so quickly. Also Bush and Gorbachev of course instrumental, Mitterand was not so accepting and Thatcher was against it.

Uncle Eric I have to tell you but I cannot watch Michael Moore’s film, I am not a fan of his and I did try to watch his 9/11 film but could not, I also saw an interview with him last week and a bit of his film and frankly I just do not share his view. Who do you think is the tyrant? What did you find so enlightening in his film?

Did you know Goldman Sachs funded his film? That’s what I read, isn’t that ironic?

Choosing socialism over capitalism is just so absurd to me, I wrote about in a bit on my blog on Aug 31 titled Ihr habt nicht alle Tassen im Schrank, when I was fuming after an West German State of Saarland over 20% voted for the socialists LINKE party here. I am now happy to say that at least the Linke did not get to rule, since as of this week a coalition was formed with the conservative, Christian Democrats (CDU), the liberal Free Democrats ( FDP) and the Green party. You can read that post if you like, so I won’t vent again here.

Yes, a few managers and politicians set bad examples and did corrupt things, but how about those who are doing lots of good and ethical things? We don’t hear about them.

I hope Karl Heinz doesn’t mind but I am going to use an example he told me about and invite him in and cc. him. Besides he would be interested in this topic and is much better at discussing it. He told me of a company where the investment firm lost money the past year, however some managers still met their goals thus were still eligible for their bonuses, the owner of this investment firm then paid out those bonuses to those managers who met their goals, out of his own private funds. No one talks about this.

The trouble with socialism is, is that there is always a victim, there is always somebody to blame for one’s situation and never responsibility or ownership for one’s actions. I will just give you two examples that have to do with finances. I know I still think like a banker.

First, 20 yrs ago already when I was a personal banker, people were way overextended on credit, I reconsolidated many people’s debts, meaning they came back over and over again to the bank, to ask us to pay down their credit card debt which was such a high interest rate and consolidate it to a lower rate, but this was done repeatedly, because people continued to use their credit cards, and yes we often cut them up right there in the office. Then when after the third of fifth time of consolidating their debt we said “NO” because they just kept getting more into debt,then WE were the bad guys, the BIG BAD BANK.

Second, I hear a lot on media that people blame the bank or their investor for their losses, well you know what people should not be investing in something they do not understand or feel comfortable with. But why did they? Of course for potential profit and higher gain.

No one MADE people take on debt, no one MADE people invest in something they did not understand, yes of course there are the few weird tragic exceptions but they are really rare and very unfortunate and of course any unethical practices should be punished.

I quite frankly don’t think the big crash has happened yet, and if the trend is to go to more socialism, well then we are all in trouble, there will just be more government debt, higher taxes, thus less rich people, less income and thus less private investment in jobs, education and charities.

It would be nice if we could sit down together and discuss these things perhaps on our Christmas visit, the trouble with me is without notes my mind is completely blank, that’s good for you, then I will listen more, hopefully and let you and Karl Heinz do that talking.

Eric said:

You know the old adage: "Power corrupts." If I were doing a documentary, that's what I would focus on. Power corrupts within socialist systems as well as within capitalist systems. Does it corrupt everyone? Which system corrupted more people, Stalin's or Hitler's. I do not agree with everything Michael Moore says, but in my view he is pointing to corruption within the capitalist system. Does this mean socialism is clean? Of course not!

Let me give you a short African perspective. I went to Tanzania in 1987 more of a socialist than I am now. Tanzania was then socialist, and is still now. There were many things going on there I did not like. BUT, Julious Nyerere, the father of the Tanzanian nation, the father of African Socialism, si the only African leader I know of who was buried with honor within is own country. My information is that he lived in a modest bungalow until his death. All other African leaders (most capitalist, some socialist) ended up tyrants, and prior to their death had to leave their country.

Karl Heinz said:

I would agree that power corrupts, and as the adage continues, "..and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I think Hitler and Stalin were both socialist (there was nothing "right wing" about Hitler, it was all about centralizing power with government) are prime examples of this. If one is truly capitalist, I interpret that as one that wants the government to have less power. To the extent there are some business ties with the government that are unhealthy and to the detriment of society - which increasingly there appear to be - I think that is not a flaw of capitalism, but a flaw of a government with increasing powers that prompts such action. Therefore, socialism is inherently more corrupt that capitalism, as socialism centralizes power with one central force - government. Yes, sometimes business has too much power as well, but by definition capitalism distributes power from one central control.

Eric said:

I think I have to agree with you that socialism has a tendency to lead to tyranny. Certainly the historical record of the USSR and China supports this. And I think I agree that to a significant extent this occurs because, practically by definition, it concentrates so much power in the hands of the ruling elite. I also agree that socialism has within it some very serious inefficiencies. But I do not think these facts inevitably lead to some of the conclusions I so often hear:

• that there is nothing good about socialism. The current US health care debate spills over into Canada. There are good points to be made pro and con, but to suggest that simply because single payer health care has a socialist element to it makes it evil, as Fox News does, smacks way more of hysteria than rational debate.
• that we can trust capitalism to solve the really serious problems we face in trying to preserve this planet for our children and grand children.

Hey, I enjoy a good discussion. How many others within the Kroeker circle do? Should we have this discussion on a blog, perhaps a dedicated blog, where others could follow and/or participate.

Karl Heinz said:

Great that you are watching FoxNews. :)

I think saying single payer is evil is perhaps extreme (although saying it will lead to inferior health care appears to carry some logic), but the other side suggests the US denys healthcare to 45min - which is factually incorrect (the number of citizens not-insured because they cant afford to pay - those making less than $40k - is less than 8 million, and its illegal to deny care to anyone including them). I am not an expert in healthcare by any means, but my sense is 95% of Americans have a vastly better experience than 95% of Canadians (this is clearly opinion and i would have difficulty proving this).

I think Capitalism wont solve all the problems, and one thing i thing we would all agree on, is that capitalism/democracy needs some level of morality to function properly - and is not a panacea in an of itself. As Winston Churchill said of democracy, "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried". In that sense, i don't know of a better system to preserve a future for our children that capitalism. But by capitalism, i also mean no bailouts for banks, including the $750b Bush did and another $800b Obama did - both of which are not in keeping with the definition of capitalism.

I love the idea of a "Discussion Blog", and invite all who want. So many good topics be interested in hearing others on. Gay marriage and is global warming real or a hoax, would be two other interesting ones.

So that's how this got started. Let's take it from here.