Has Europe 'horribly failed' because of Socialism?

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: Matt W *blinks* An interesting statement. Do you see Europe as having 'horribly failed' because of the majority of Socialist geovernments?? :rolleyes: No, don't answer that....try and focus on the topic.

[CENTER] [/CENTER]

I gotta answer this!

YOU ASKED!

YES!! They have failed BIG TIME!

Let me present this analogical scenario -

• A person goes to work - the employer expects 10 things to be accomplished every day.
• Another employer in the same field of experience expects an employee to do (more or less) just 6 things.
• Basic human nature would dictate that more people would try to get a job with the second company than with the one with higher expectations
• COMMON SENSE would make a person wonder which one was more successful.
• Politics is like those employer's - the lower standards attract more employee's with lower goals and objectives.

As I see it - Socialism is like the second company.

Look at what has happened in this country already.

• People do not want to be responsible for their sexual outcome

  So there is a push for ABORTION and AIDS research and assistance on the taxes

• People do not want to be schooled

  So they expect the schooled to subsidize their poverty through taxes

• Homeless do not want to work

  So they expect handouts funded through taxes and donations

• People want FREE medical

  They wait for months to get special medical services paid from taxes.

Socialism is a let down for producers - those who are willing to work for higher goals and standards.

DON'T GET ME WRONG - I am all for helping the poor (the poor that are willing to help themselves).

A big part of why the poverty level is as it is in the USA is due to the feverish need to play political Robin Hood.

There is a reasonable solution to this . . . but it needs to go into a NEW THREAD! :)

[RVonse]

I have read most of Europe has the best health care in the world, measured in terms of cost vs. life expectancy. On that very important issue, it appears that Europe is very successful compared to the rest of the world.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RVonse I have read most of Europe has the best health care in the world, measured in terms ofcost vs. life expectancy . On that very important issue, it appears that Europe is very successful compared to the rest of the world.

Just for fun, please explain the “cost vs. life expectancy terms”. Seems to me that this can be accomplished quite handily by giving everyone all the care they want until they need constant care, and then rejecting them from the system and denying them services before the costs become too much.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Isn't the unemployment in the EU as a whole high, and socialist states like France and Germany are having some serious ecomonic problems?

[Matt W]

Vs. Sweden & Norway who are just as Socialist, if not more, and are in tip-top condition?

[Matt W]

:rolleyes: I'm talking about their economy, not their health!

Germany is a bogus example, and Mr.V knows it. You've effectively got one country trying to support two, with the burden of reunification.

[RVonse]

Quote by: Apeman81 Just for fun, please explain the “cost vs. life expectancy terms”. Seems to me that this can be accomplished quite handily by giving everyone all the care they want until they need constant care, and then rejecting them from the system and denying them services before the costs become too much.

Cost = the total amount of money that is spent on medical care in dollars or euros convereted to dollars.

Life Expectancy = simply the averge life expectancy of the total population of the country, period. Another words, on average you are more likely to live longer in Europe than the United States, South America, or Africa. Average life expectency could be influenced by other factors than medical care but the fact remains it is much better to live longer than not. That is why almost all of us are better off living today than in the days of the Roman Empire. Because on average most of us live twice as long as they did then, supposedly because of improvements in technology and medicine.

If life is important to you, then the best place to live right now is Europe and Australia.

[Nono]

Quote by: Matt Germany is a bogus example, and Mr.V knows it. You've effectively got one country trying to support two, with the burden of reunification.

I doubt Vicchio wishes to know anything of the sort, but you're right. And in addition to the burden of supporting a whole extra country (a decision taken by a Christian Democrat government, let it not be forgotten) here's an interesting fact:
Germany derives about 40% of its national income from exports. For the US it's about 10%. So when you hear Americans chuckling about high unemployment in Germany, just remember that German workers are four times more heavily exposed to competition from cheap foreign manufacturers than their grinning US counterparts.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Aquietguy1 My bad! I thought you were talking about health when you said tip-top condition. I still don't like socialism. I would rather control my own life than to have the government control it.

Thats only one notion of socialism. You can have socialism in a capitalist society through the use of co-ops, unions etc.

To the question...

Europe certainly has not "failed" because of socialism. For a start, what are you talking about regarding Europe? Are you talking about the EU project? Or the states of Europe? And what are your definitions of failing or succeeding? Until you put some framework for this discussion together, there can't be any conclusive answers.

That said, I would say Europe has certainly benefited from socialism. After WWII, most of the UK's major industrial centres had been ravaged by bombing, making many homeless. The effect was 10x as bad on the continent. Socialist governments took the reigns of the economy and rebuilt the infrastructure of our countries and got us working again. People had cheap, affordable housing. Employment was secured. If socialism is so awful, why is it that Germany, West Germany at least, turned it self from the most wrecked country aside Russia, into the most dynamic economy in the world besides Japan? Germany remained strong long after Marshall Aid ceased, so it is not down to that alone. With France, a country that was frankly backwards before and during the war, was turned into a a modern industrial economy in a handful of years, and remained healthy for a long time.

And why is it that the 'horribly failed' Europe has, even if I limit myself to the EU, has a larger economy than the US? Why is it that the dollar has lost it's position as the world reserve currency, because of the euro?

[SteveA]

I read an article from a guy in England talking about how socialism has affected the social mores there. People have become more accustomed over time, just as in America, to "let government take care of it". Abilities, including the work ethic decays (like, sadly, our more recent crop of youth here) and it becomes almost a "sane" option to do as little as possible and let other people do it for you. I'm joking somewhat on the sanity but I've found it interesting that if I had instead of working, gone on welfare, I'd be legally required under section 8 rules to live in a larger home and likely I'd have a larger TV and car, similar to others on welfare that I've seen but I'm an idiot and refuse to cave in ... though I am blowing off my savings now becaue I've realized it's more a liability now to save because they're getting hungry.

The good part though about sticking it out is that by keeping afloat on your own, when the ship goes down, you'll be a damn good swimmer :)

[Matt W]

History also tells us that socialism is the next step to communism which is for worse

Which history book are you reading that in, exactly? Last I looked, Communism came about through the overthrow of dictatorships, in the main. Extremists replaced by extremists. :rolleyes:

[Boetie]

The thread of this title is misleading. What actually happened was socialism was a response to capitalism. Capitalism would be the system that the people felt was not cutting it.

So the movement gained momentum both here and in Europe. The socialist movement gained ground during the first part of the 1900's here in America. The members grew by leaps and bounds that it changed the shape of our government, which is to say we went to the left. Todays economic blessings is the result of that movement because movements do not stop on a dime. We are now turning around which isn't going to benefit America the move to the right only benefits the wealthy so America is heading for a cliff and off into the abyss.

Of course there are many whom would like to see socialism fail and go out of their way to make sure it fails ie Raygun murdering people in Latin America, the murder of the peasants in Vietnam, three goverments getting pounded on, Iraq, Haiti, Venezuela all of them are or were close to socialism.

[Nono]

Quote by: Aquietguy1 History tells us that people are better off when the government gets out of the people way and let them produce.

"History tells us that" -- bullshit! Perhaps History according to Saint Ronald Reagan, or example (as placed under Ronnie's wee pillow by the wee history fairy, which he probably believed in), but not the real hands-on history of, say, the Great Depression.

But then I'm just another crazed lefty who favours things like rural electrification and other nutty socialist schemes-

[brien]

Quote by: SlantedFacts [CENTER] [/CENTER] I gotta answer this! YOU ASKED! YES!! They have failed BIG TIME! Let me present this analogical scenario - A person goes to work - the employer expects 10 things to be accomplished every day. Another employer in the same field of experience expects an employee to do (more or less) just 6 things. Basic human nature would dictate that more people would try to get a job with the second company than with the one with higher expectations COMMON SENSE would make a person wonder which one was more successful. Politics is like those employer's - the lower standards attract more employee's with lower goals and objectives. As I see it - Socialism is like the second company. Look at what has happened in this country already. People do not want to be responsible for their sexual outcome So there is a push for ABORTION and AIDS research and assistance on the taxes People do not want to be schooled So they expect the schooled to subsidize their poverty through taxes Homeless do not want to work So they expect handouts funded through taxes and donations People want FREE medical They wait for months to get special medical services paid from taxes. Socialism is a let down for producers - those who are willing to work for higher goals and standards. DON'T GET ME WRONG - I am all for helping the poor (the poor that are willing to help themselves). A big part of why the poverty level is as it is in the USA is due to the feverish need to play political Robin Hood. There is a reasonable solution to this . . . but it needs to go into a NEW THREAD! :)

First, I think you need to define Socialism so we all understand what it is we are exactly addressing. You have provided examples of actions that may well result in the state being responsible for the outcomes of those actions, but this in and of itself, may not be Socialism. Since most abortion is privately funded, I do not agree that abortion is particularly a property of Socialism. AIDS, how does Socialism cause AIDS? And the AIDS research is no less important by any responsible society that is Cancer research. Would you deny AIDS therapy to an innocent child born of an infected mother? And since AIDS is contracted in the US mostly by using dirty needles, would not the legalization of illegal drugs significantly reduce the incidence of AIDS thereby reducing the caseload?

People don't want to be schooled because the government schools have failed them. The Welfare system has been responsible for the break up of the family. It encourages women to not have marriage partners and lose their entitlements In this respect, if this is what you call Socialism, I would agree. But I don't think Socialism means that everyone sits back and collect entitlements from the state. I think you need to be more specific here.

I don't think that the average person on welfare wants to be there. Oh, we all hear about the welfare queens with six kids by six different men, but this is probably the exception rather than the rule. If I remember my statistics on this , there are more white people on welfare than African Americans. I disagree that people want to be on welfare. There just isn't enough money doled out to make it a comfortable lifestyle for the avearge welfare recipient.

I think your employer scenario is way too simplistic. Perhaps a worker would go to the employer who expects 10 things to be done on a daily basis because : they enjoy that work, they are good at that work, it comes easy to them, etc, etc. I think you paint the average citizen with too broad of the "lazy" brush. It seems you have little faith in the American worker.

I think what is happening in America today may be a "back door" approach to Socialism by de facto. There are numerous examples of this.

AMTRAK, Corporate subsidies, Farm subsidies, cetatin entitlement under Social Security, etc. America's compass may be pointing towards Socialist answers to society's problems like health care, but it is only because we have a Congress full of spineless dunces. The Democrat and Republican Parties both have factions that are firmly entrenched in ideology that is influenced by Socialism, but there is no real Socialist Party that has any meaningful power in the Government. This is why I term it "back door" Socialism by de facto, because the Congress tackles its problems in a reactionary way. Rather than design programs around answers rooted in Capitalism and Private Industry, they take the spinelss way out of these problems and design their solutions around government programs that are funded by shoveling the fiscal burden upon the taxpayer who has no control over their spending.

America requires radical reform that should begin by first retracting its military from around the world. Close every military base on foreign soil. America is not the worlds's great protector. Stop the deluge of money being handed to foreign nations on a yearly basis until the US can get its own social problems solved first. The US should resign from the UN and offer to help relocate it to Geneva Switzerland. The US should resign from NATO. Those nations do not require the US to protect them, nor should the US protect them, and the US certainly doesn't need them to protect us.

Our budget deficit is over 300 BILLION for this year. This kind of money is going to bankrupt this nation unless we stop this drunken spending spree. The sooner we stop the hemmorage of money related to foreign military entanglements and occupations, foreign drain pipes to countries whose leaders steal the money earmarked for their indigent, and money wasted here at home, the better postion the US will be in to solve its own domestic problems before it seeks to tramp around the globe selling something we can't even deliver.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Aquietguy1 The question that needs to be answered is if you are willing to get up the freedoms and right that we have in America. I lot of people in this world would love to have them. Everything that our founding fathers fought for. You don't know what you had until you don't have it no more. That's something people need to think about. Remember that you get what you ask for.

And you're not addressing any of the questions in this debate. I would suggest you try and contribute.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Matt W Which history book are you reading that in, exactly? Last I looked, Communism came about through the overthrow of dictatorships, in the main. Extremists replaced by extremists. :rolleyes:

He's correct Matt. Socialism is the step prior to communism. That where the ideal of socialism originally came from:

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

[Matt W]

I'm well aware of what Socialism is, SteveA - no need for the dictionary definitions.

As for Aquietguy1, 'historically' and factually he's talking out of his backside. Russia - Communism (or Leninsim, at least) was imposed after the overthrow of the Tsars. China - After the overthrow of the Emperors. There are many more examples. But one of a steady, gentle progression to Communism? Nope. As I said, it's an extremist reaction - generally kicked off by a different form of extremist rule. Do any of the Socialist governments of Europe want Communism? My arse, if you'll excuse the colloqiualism.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Matt W I'm well aware of what Socialism is, SteveA - no need for the dictionary definitions. As for Aquietguy1, 'historically' and factually he's talking out of his backside. Russia - Communism (or Leninsim, at least) was imposed after the overthrow of the Tsars. China - After the overthrow of the Emperors. There are many more examples. But one of a steady, gentle progression to Communism? Nope. As I said, it's an extremist reaction - generally kicked off by a different form of extremist rule. Do any of the Socialist governments of Europe want Communism? My arse, if you'll excuse the colloqiualism.

What socialist governments don't continually drift more toward communism until they collapse? China has turned around some but England, America and Europe still seem to be heading more toward communism. As far as I know India is heading that direction also.

We recently allowed emminent domain to redistribute property in the U.S., and since when have the size of public agencies dropped in Europe, England or the U.S.? They keep growing, even as a percent of resources. In the U.S., all combined, local, state and federal governments own more than half the land here now.

Even in Communist Russia government couldn't really own everything. It just had a widespread control over housing, jobs, schools etc. similar to our modern socialist governments but simply to a greater extent. The way I see it is that more than half the GDP currently is controlled in one form or another via. government. If communism would mean control of 80% of it, then we're at least a socialist nation, if not partly communistic.

They recently (like 20 years ago or something) made it illegal to homestead new land here in the U.S. That's a simply example of it, IMO. I know some people are probably thinking ... "Well you can't just let people go out and live anywhere they want, can you?" ... Assuming we had a system that simply enforced against damages to others, why not? There's a mindset that's prevalent and makes people not even realize how they're being enslaved. I guess if someone is truly willing to be a slave and they consider it a voluntary and desirable situation, well what can you do except hope they wake up someday.

[Matt W]

'Fraid you're wrong on the UK front. Public ownership of several industries (such as rail) has been reversed - with a 'Labour' government in power. We've seen a significant drift to the right in mainstream politics here in the last....20 years, mebbe? Ever since Neil Kinnock stepped down and Tony with his shiny 'New Labour' message took up the reins.

As for Europe, I'd also argue that you're barking up the wrong tree. New centre-right government in Berlin, French elections coming up, and whilst no-one wants to completely dismantle the state organs they have, there are serious questions being asked about the viability of things like pensions, etc. It's pretty much agreed that the State cannot afford these trappings for much longer.

And as for India...have a nose round Breaking News for a thread I posted a day or two ago - they're opening up their markets to foreign investors quite significantly.

We're not mad, SteveA. No-one - apart from a few serious extremists - wants Communism. The evidence of that madness is just down the road, for those that want to see it. The middle ground is pretty much where we'll stay. Government agencies may grow, but every politician worth his salt is going to have them in the firing line when they start talking about 'cutting red tape' & 'blitzing bureacracy'. We have it every election, and I do believe there's a fair few redundancies going on in places like Inland Revenue right now.

[SteveA]

What you're saying sounds like the common perspective and I realize there's been a long term growing objection to greater government influences on private spheres but I believe that 1) it's been 1 step forwand and 2 steps back on many issues and that 2) many of things that appear to be a reduction in goverment control are truly greater control but simply passed on to their "private" buddies. It sounds great but it's a misrepresentation of what' happening.

Here's the way I see it working.

Private Guy A earns $50,000/year.
Private Guy B earns $50,000/year.

Private Guy B has Government Buddy raise taxes and regulations targetted at Private Guy A though it hits B some also. So we have:

Private Guy A after taxes and regulatory/compliance costs earns $25,000/year.
Private Guy B after these earns $40,000/year.
Government Buddy pockets some of this (not all the difference as overall the system tends to be inefficient) so he gets $20,000

Private Guy A eventually complains and so Government Buddy splits the take with Private Guy B in the name of "privatization" (though it's not really privatization, as the money was still stolen in a decidely non-private fashion) and we have this:

Private Guy A ends up with $25,000/year.
Private Guy B still ends up with $50,000/year.
Government Buddy pockets the $10,000/year.

(If we had an utopian world, they should all be able to earn $50,000 each but I'm not ignorant that we don't live in that world but simply know we could do a lot better ... especially if you compound this effect over time so every the difference of 2% a year better growth can become a huge difference 40 years later ... 2% compounded over 40 years is 121%, so 40 years of good growth could more than double the availability of things for people compared to slower growth. Social programs are largely unnecessary when the economy is doing well)

So in the end Government Buddy can say he's only taken $10,000 and even helped support "privatization" in the process and Private Guy A is still wondering why he can't get ahead. Private Guy B is the equivalent of any many government favored or subsidized industries or even specific companies that get a leg up.