European socialism: functional or not?
- Thread starter D0NIMATRIX
- Start date
State is one of worst managers because its very easy giving away money which are not theirs. Of course its very hard to say how it should look like, because its easy implement socialist things but very hard get rid of them. Employers in times are losing ground how attract employers besides salary.
The difference is that politicians started promoting socialism to differ from traditional politicians. They came with application of socialist theory to political thinking in order to get votes, and there are coming new and new ideas what roles should state take. For example only before some years came people who were claiming supporting green policy, while every second politician opponent lived much "greener" life than they. Its simply progress, its possible that in future state would be obliged to clean your clothes and tide your room.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
The problem is only that solidarity is an inflated word nowadays. Modern "socialists" are solidaric with virtually anybody.Well done, eh?
I did not want to endorse them by using that quote, I just quoted that to illustrate their self-perception. The keyphrase being ´solidarity´, serving as an introduction for the topic of income equality.
It is desirable from my political stance. And a question of civilization.Also from my political stance. Socialism or barbarism is a good slogan. And I do monologues, remember.
I am a huge fan of history and I find good reasons there for why the bourgeoisie in Western maintained rather huge welfare states for some time and why they have been undermined in recent years. Factors like strong labour unions (which is more important than whether "conservatives" or "socialists" form governments) and the presence of an ideological alternative up to the counter-revolutions in the Eastern Bloc are among the most significant.
I also haven't any good figures at hand and I don't feel like wasting much time to find them only for this. I assume most people on this forum can read. It should also be basic knowledge.
EDIT: To your second post; the European Union exists for more than one reason. This is one of the most important ones.
Gee. Wonder how much they pay you for lectures in politics.
Merkinball
Deity
If I don't like the corporation that makes the car, then I don't have to buy the car. If the government controls the auto industry, I don't have a choice in the matter.
If I don't like my heath insurance, I can get a new one. If the government controls healthcare, I don't have a choice in the matter.
If I don't like my current retirement manager, I can fire him, and get a new one. If the government takes my money and buries it in the back yard and gives a fraction of that sum in the future, I don't have a choice in the matter.
Etc, etc...
Thorgalaeg
Deity
You have a say in the government VOTING. You dont have a say in corporations.
That's not the same thing as a "strong/interventionist government"
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Socialism is a description of a relationship between the employees of a business. It has nothing to do with the government, save that it will be needed to enforce that relationship.
There's no reason to assume that everything, or even many things, will be owned by the government, and dictated from above. Or hell, even to assume that the "free" market will disappear. Just because such top-down control was needed in a place like the Soviet Union doesn't mean its needed in the United States; indeed, we have certainly progressed far beyond such a need, and are a mature industrial society.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
If you don't like the policeman who protects you, you can get another.
Or if you don't like the fireman who saves your house, you can get another.
Or if you don't like the army that defends you, you can get another.
Sure pal. Only in America.
Thorbal
not enough ram!
Socialism does not necessarily equal nationalisation of industries. No social democrat in Germany would endorse widespread nationalisation.
Well, "die LINKE" (a party composed mainly of ex-GDR state party guys and some disappointed social democrats) would, be they are on the extreme end of the political spectrum and a minority.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Here is an interesting graphic from the wiki, showing the different gini values across the world:
Spoiler :
Of course, as you may notice, the gini value in itself does not say something about absolute wealth, just relative income disparity. But we know European GDP etc. is quite comparable to the US while maintaining a lower income disparity. If one says ´socialism´ is about ´fair´ (whatever that means) redistribution of wealth, I think it is quite good at it.
Funny, the evil bastions of US-style heartless capitalism like Czecho-Slovakia are colored with the same colour as Germany! That must be wrong!
The social democrats in Germany aren't socialists.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The Social Democrats everywhere aren't socialists. They've been, for lack of a better word, co-opted by the rules of the "parliamentary game" into playing a game they can't hope to win.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
Yes it does. Being on the "extreme end" (just like the so-called centre is less extreme) and a minority doesn't necessarily mean that one is wrong.
Unfortunately.
Take a look at some of the laws of European Union. You'll see that the 27 members of the EU are forced to make sure there's a "free market" (with competition) in all commercial sectors, including car industry, health care, mailing service, energy supply, public transport, etc. In other words, in the EU you can chose between those stuff just as easily (maybe even easier) than in the USA.
If they give money to one company in a certain branch (like health care) they're forced to give the other countries in that branch money as well.
Thorbal
not enough ram!
I would agree that the social democrats in Germany (and elsewhere) are not socialists (in the extreme sense). I used ´socialist´ in the context that the OP understood it, at least how I thought he understood it.
edit: exactly, suiraclaw! European countries are market economies, after all! It´s just that gouvernments here are a bit more involved in the economic process, perhaps.
I would say that the federal governments, particularly of France and Germany are effective and functional.
I take a look at Germany and see a country that is able to enjoy the benefits of many welfare programs, and yet their productivity is just as great as our own. France largely the same as well. Each nation with rather minor increases in taxes is able to support a significant amount of research etc. So I see that while there are more taxes, the government provides an aduaquate amount of services.
As to either it will be functional in the future: Europe and America will have to change in the future no matter what. Our social systems will have to reform to deal with so many more retirees. Europe will be mixed (the UK will certainly be in big trouble), but many nations should be able to reform themselves. Our Congress here in the U.S has too many interests protecting the status quo in Social Security and our morass of a healthcare system to provide real significant change, rather congress will likely just expand the budget of welfare at the expense of education and infastructure.
I take a look at Germany and see a country that is able to enjoy the benefits of many welfare programs, and yet their productivity is just as great as our own. France largely the same as well. Each nation with rather minor increases in taxes is able to support a significant amount of research etc. So I see that while there are more taxes, the government provides an aduaquate amount of services.
As to either it will be functional in the future: Europe and America will have to change in the future no matter what. Our social systems will have to reform to deal with so many more retirees. Europe will be mixed (the UK will certainly be in big trouble), but many nations should be able to reform themselves. Our Congress here in the U.S has too many interests protecting the status quo in Social Security and our morass of a healthcare system to provide real significant change, rather congress will likely just expand the budget of welfare at the expense of education and infastructure.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
The problem is only that neither you nor the OP any more than baron Giddens are Humpty Dumpty. I fail to grasp what you mean with the "extreme sense", but nevertheless what we deal with here is something that is not socialist in the unextreme sense either. They are just non-socialists. I get reminded of that old Reagan joke about anti-communism...
Oh, they are involved there as well. Just check out te Conservative Nanny State link in my sig. I believe Martin Luther King talked about socialism for the rich.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The OP doesn't understand the term. That's the whole point we've been trying to make. If the capitalist system is not abolished in the country, then it is not socialist. Full stop.
Which makes them at the absolute most a welfare state. They are not Socialist.
You end up confusing everybody else though.
As I once pointed out regarding our recent Eurovision winner: if a country has successfully nationalized ends of production, is it really necessary to nationalize the means as well?
I was half-joking, but I guess it is a legit point. Say you have a "capitalist" country with an income tax of 90%. What should it be called?
Similar threads
