The Eurozone collapse, socialism writ large., page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

Topic started on 1-6-2012 @ 12:17 PM by beezzer

Let me explain.

Currently there are 17 countries that make up the Eurozone. Yet they all have different fiscal ideologies. We currently are watching Greece struggle with the demands of the rest of the countries involved. Greece has a different fiscal approach than, say, Germany. Yet Greece is supposed to obtain a similar measure of fiscal responsibility as the rest of the 'zone.

The more prosperous countries are/have been dumping money into the IMF to prop up failing countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal.

Which brings me to my point. Socialism is the great equalizer. Yet seen above, the harder workers (Germany) are supporting the weaker workers (Greece). So really, there is no equality.

One nation, or one person; it all relates to the same outcome. Unless you force a person or a country to adapt to a fiscal ideology that is the same (imagine work ethic) you will always have an inequality based on a personal viewpoint to fiscal or work approaches.

Am I right?

Or is this an epic fail on my part?

Would like to hear your opinion.

beez

edit on 1-6-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 12:27 PM by benrl

Socialism and communism as ideas aren't inherently bad, its when rubber meets the road that the problem starts.

People suck at sharing and are lazy.

edit on 1-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 12:37 PM by TDawgRex

This is not an example of epic fail. However, you are guilty of common sense.

I have seen throughout my military career Soldiers who have attempted to sustain family members who are …financially retarded, mostly due to their lifestyles, such as drug use or living beyond their means.

It...has…never…worked.

I have always tried to counsel these troops to “Cut Slingload.”, if the family member does not try to rectify their ways. God bless ‘em, family does come first, but IMO, not at the expense of my own well being.

What happens is that the Soldier is then dragged down to the family member’s level. And now we have two families, if not more dependent upon others for problems of their own making.

This is but an example on a micro scale and what we are seeing within the EU is on a macro scale.

Which brings to mind, if people insist upon being idiots…how can I profit from it? [Insert evil laugh]

After all, I have to take care of my family as well. Maybe this is how the Rothchilds and Bilderburger group came about?

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 12:38 PM by beezzer

Originally posted by benrl
Socialism and communism as ideas aren't inherently bad, its when rubber meets the road that the problem starts.

People suck at sharing and are lazy.
edit on 1-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Absolutely. From Greece's standpoint, Germany and the rest of the Eurozone are being unreasonable and demanding.

From Germany's standpoint, Greece is just being lazy.

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 12:43 PM by benrl

reply to post by beezzer

I saw a graph on hear recently, can't remember the thread, but it was about states paying more taxes, and what they get back for it.

Basically some states supporting states that have contributed far less, so the euro situation can happen anywhere, I am surprised there's not more complaining about that here in the US.

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 12:46 PM by beezzer

reply to post by TDawgRex

Good point.

What we argue about here on ATS at the micro level is occuring right now on the macro level.

Maggie Thatcher once said, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 12:48 PM by beezzer

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by beezzer

I saw a graph on hear recently, can't remember the thread, but it was about states paying more taxes, and what they get back for it.

Basically some states supporting states that have contributed far less, so the euro situation can happen anywhere, I am surprised there's not more complaining about that here in the US.

Anytime you hear about a "federal bailout", they are doing it.

States like California with 265 billion in debt are going to be damaging other, more sound states, very soon.

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 12:54 PM by hp1229

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by beezzer

Basically some states supporting states that have contributed far less, so the euro situation can happen anywhere, I am surprised there's not more complaining about that here in the US.

There is a big difference in Comparing EU with US. States have their laws with the Federal Gov't above it all.
Ofcourse there were rumors of secession by some states in the US recently (within the last 5 years) that I remember.
However that was nothing more than a power play.

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 12:58 PM by benrl

Anytime you hear about a "federal bailout", they are doing it. States like California with 265 billion in debt are going to be damaging other, more sound states, very soon.

reply to post by beezzer

Exactlly, the level of complaint here is not what it should be for the current situation.

people bitch about it a little bit, but no real action has been taken, Occupy is marginalized.

If I didn't know better Id say someones medicating the water or something.

edit on 1-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 01:01 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by beezzer
Am I right?

Or is this an epic fail on my part?

Would like to hear your opinion.

No, there is no socialism in Europe. Only you Americans think Europe is socialist.

It is capitalist, with some nationalism, just like the USA and the rest of the world.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, an economic system, not government. Under socialism the workers have the power, not the state. Under capitalism the state has control, on behalf of the capitalists, simply because capitalism allows minority groups to become overtly wealthy, which allows them to control the majority through their economic power.

If the workers owned the means of production the wealth would be more widely distributed, profits go to everyone, not just the private owner, thus no single person, or minority class, can use their wealth to control the majority.

Social democracy is not socialism. They do not believe in worker ownership. So many are confused about these terms.

Socialism will always be demonised by the state because it moves the power away from capitalist corporate entities to the workers.

edit on 6/1/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 01:07 PM by beezzer

reply to post by ANOK

Imagine all the nations in the Eurozone as workers. Each produces. Some produce more than others, yet those that don't produce the same, expect an equal share.

How can this not be compared to socialism?

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 01:17 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ANOK

Imagine all the nations in the Eurozone as workers. Each produces. Some produce more than others, yet those that don't produce the same, expect an equal share.

How can this not be compared to socialism?

Nations are not workers they are nations. Nations are not ran by workers, but by governments that are controlled by capitalists through their economic advantage over the rest of us.

Socialism is about taking away the exploitation of labour by private entities.

Socialism is not equal shares either, it simply pays workers the full fruits of their labour, as apposed to capitalism where workers have to produce more than they are paid for. That extra production is called surplus value and goes to the private owner as profit that they use to live on and invest. Worker ownership means the surplus value belongs to the worker who produced it. It doesn't mean everyone is paid the same, it depend on what your production makes, the value of your production in a truly free-market.

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 01:22 PM by beezzer

reply to post by ANOK

Person A is Germany. (or Italy, or France) I don't care and it doesn't matter how they "run" their household.

Person B is Greece (or Portugal or Spain) Again, I don't care and it doesn't matter how they run their "house".

All 17 "persons" go to work at a company called Eurozone.

Person A is spending way too much to support person B who is not producing.

They are not "producing" at the same level.

Subsequently, you'll find inequality on the benefits of working at company Eurozone.

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 01:33 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ANOK

Person A is Germany. (or Italy, or France) I don't care and it doesn't matter how they "run" their household.

Person B is Greece (or Portugal or Spain) Again, I don't care and it doesn't matter how they run their "house".

All 17 "persons" go to work at a company called Eurozone.

Person A is spending way too much to support person B who is not producing.

They are not "producing" at the same level.

Subsequently, you'll find inequality on the benefits of working at company Eurozone.

What is your point? Didn't I just say socialism is not equality? Sorry but your are simply grabbing at straws.

Unless the workers own the means of production it is not socialism. Socialism is not equality as you seem to think, it is simply a more fair way to distribute the wealth we create. Capitalists are unnecessary leaches of that wealth.

Again unless the workers own the means of production it is not socialism.

You do know that capitalism actually started in Europe right? That it replaced feudalism in the 1700's? That the workers in the 1800's tried to replace it with worker ownership? That the capitalists appropriated left-wing terms and changed their definition in order to control?

edit on 6/1/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 01:41 PM by beezzer

reply to post by ANOK

What I'm trying to illustrate is nationalism/socialism/communism ultiimately fails.

We're seeing it on the macro level with the Eurozone collapse. We argue about the benefits and failures daily here on ATS.

Just thought I'd point it out.

edit on 1-6-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 01:46 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ANOK

What I'm trying to illustrate is nationalism/socialism/communism ultiimately fails.

We're seeing it on the macro level with the Eurozone collapse. We argue about the benefits and failures daily here on ATS

But you're not because you are not talking about socialism or communism.

Socialism has never failed because it's a bad system, in fact it has only ever truly been tried in one country and that was Spain 1936-1939, and it was very economically successful. It failed because of Europe's right-wing, Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. It didn't fail because it didn't work.

Why do you lump nationalism in with it? Nationalism is state ownership, not worker ownership. That is what they have in Europe, government social programs. National healthcare. In Britain it is the NHS, national health service, not the SHS.

en.wikipedia.org...

Socialism is not nationalism. Social is not socialism. Liberalism is not socialism. Big government is not socialism.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

edit on 6/1/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 01:52 PM by beezzer

reply to post by ANOK

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

en.wikipedia.org...

Emphasis is mine.

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 02:15 PM by daskakik

reply to post by beezzer

That definition is what ANOK meant by "appropriated left-wing terms".

In any case, that definition does not reflect the situation in the Eurozone, so it isn't socialism using either definition.

edit on 1-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 02:19 PM by beezzer

reply to post by daskakik

Then let me repeat.

Person A is Germany. (or Italy, or France) I don't care and it doesn't matter how they "run" their household.

Person B is Greece (or Portugal or Spain) Again, I don't care and it doesn't matter how they run their "house".

All 17 "persons" go to work at a company called Eurozone.

Person A is spending way too much to support person B who is not producing.

They are not "producing" at the same level.

Subsequently, you'll find inequality on the benefits of working at company Eurozone.

Socialism (or social nationalism, or obfuscation) is ensuring an equal outcome, equal results for potentially unequal input /work.

reply posted on 1-6-2012 @ 02:23 PM by HEYJOSE

What you are witnessing is more Bankster/ Corporate theft on a massive scale. The IMF is a SCAM and the Greek people are being screwed, just like YOU are being screwed, by to big to fail Banks, by Wallstreet, by the 1%, by sociopathic scoundrels who just don't give a sh$t about amybody but themselves. I hope Greece tells the IMF to stick it.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^