The Eurozone collapse, socialism writ large.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ANOK

 

Only if we agree that your definition is accurate.

But my definition is accurate, go read a book or two.

I could give you quotes from books I have, or links on the net, but I don't think anything I can say will convince you.

But to be honest I'm not surprised as I didn't understand socialism myself once, and would have a similar reaction to it you do, even though I was calling myself an "anarchist" and was anti everything just about lol. I worked with a communist and told him to shut up when he started on about worker this and worker that. It's something that takes a bit of reading to really understand, and then it becomes very simple, I am giving it away to you.

The problem all stems from the misunderstanding of Marxism and the Communist Manifesto. A misunderstanding that started almost immediately after it was published. The right wing capitalist establishment took advantage of these misunderstandings in order to weaken the power of the working class (solidarity, singular purpose to better their class). Up until WWII the working class were extremely well organized against the capitalists class, which lead to things like the worker ran Labour Party in the UK, and finally the Spanish revolution. WWII was as much about destroying the working class as it was fighting Hitler. After WII the working class was sold the desire to become middle class (white collar), socialism was replaced by liberalism. The UK has the Liberal Party, that was not socialist, in the early 1900's.

The CommyFesto is not socialism, but has been used as the definition by taking it out of context. The state control part of Marxism is a worker controlled government, the dictatorship of the proletariat, central planning of the economy, and nationalisation of industry. That has been sold as the definition of socialism, it isn't. That is a temporary period called the transition period, the transition from capitalism to communism using state socialism. That was the period Marxists believe is necessary to increase production and make the change. But once they have achieved communism the state is no longer necessary.
But not all socialists support that, they want direct action revolution, they call themselves Anarchists. The anarchists believe that power is power and any state system would end up corrupt and impossible to get rid of.
Not all socialists want communism. Market-Socialists for example.

But the final goal is the same...Free association of producers in a free-market. (capitalism is not free-market)

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

That can only be achieved with worker ownership.

Originally posted by beezzer
But expectations are supposed to be equal.

I mean, if not then why is Greece considering the Drachma?

I don't understand what you mean?

Things are either equally distributed or they are not. If not then it doesn't fit the definition of socialism that you posted.

reply to post by beezzer


It only works/is right, when the more prosperous force the failing (the failing will just drag the prosperous down) to play along. Not the other way around.
IMO

reply to post by ANOK
I appreciate the well thought out reply.

I guess we can banter back and forth on definitions, but ultimately what we are seeing is a failure of a "system".

Greece's inability to maintain fiscal discipline has damaged other economies in the Eurozone. The successful countriess no longer will shoulder the burden of the less successful.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ANOK

 

I appreciate the well thought out reply.

I guess we can banter back and forth on definitions, but ultimately what we are seeing is a failure of a "system".

Greece's inability to maintain fiscal discipline has damaged other economies in the Eurozone. The successful countriess no longer will shoulder the burden of the less successful.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as the successful countrys kicking out any less successful countrys. Greece may choose to leave. That's an other picture though.

But maybe I have missed some news

Originally posted 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)

My humble opinion is that none of these nations are socialist. Not in any way shape or form.

So since they are not socialist nations and could not be since they all exist within an Imperial Capitalist Empire, this threads has a very mcCarthyist feel to it. People are often hysterical about socialsim and confuse it with other things.

Nations like Australia should not,I repeat not be forced to throw in to Americas taxpayer theft scam that is the IMF. The IMF is American. Do not let Americans distance themselves from the problems of the Euro. The US Banks have collapsed the economies of Europe with their schemes.

This is the fault of US Banks just like almost everything else. Not the fault of an imagined socialism.

reply to post by beezzer


I can't help but be reminded of an editorial in City AM (a free financial newspaper handed out at Waterloo station to commuters) a few weeks ago. It's largely euro-sceptic rhetoric but this piece stood out. The thought-provoking piece runs like this...

JP Morgan Asset Management has crunched the numbers in a tongue in cheek report assessing which countries would make the best fit were we seeking to create yet more monetary unions. The market economies of Latin America would form the most optimal currency union. Remarkably, next best would be a union made up of the UK and its English speaking ex colonies – strikingly, not our European neighbours. Less good but still decent would be Central America, Gulf Co-Operation Council countries and the ex USSR nations.

What of the euro? It ranks as the least compatible of all possible unions. It does even worse than a reconstitution of the Ottoman Empire. Incredibly, a random grouping of countries starting with the letter M (Mozambique, Madagascar, Myanmar and so on) would make a better union than the Eurozone. Just as absurdly, a monetary union made up of all countries at the fifth parallel north latitude would also comprise a more optimal currency than the Eurozone. No wonder it is slowly unravelling in front of our eyes.

Wednesday 9th May 2012, 2:06am
EDITOR’S LETTER
ALLISTER HEATH

source...

Putting aside the dry humour, he makes a very important point. The Eurozone looks like it's heading for a massive fall. Apparently, one of the main reasons the Eurozone was set up was to stop us all from killing each other in huge numbers over and over again. In their desperation to prevent yet another disastrous kill-fest like the second world war (and the first) the square pegs of European countries were hammered into the round hole of the Eurozone. And this is what we have to deal with.

I don't know if this is all by design and someone somewhere will profit hugely from the crash or if it really was set up with the best of intentions and it's been hijacked by greedy, ruthless people or if a room full of monkeys on nitrous oxide bashed out the idea by randomly typing on a huge number of typewriters. But it's clear that it's floundering and the consequences will be far-reaching.

I think I'll buy a storm kettle next month with a lot of dried food and a water filtration system, just in case.

ADDENDUM: In the light of the above I don't see how the Eurozone collapse is down to socialism specifically. I think that the current debacle has been caused by ignoring the obvious differences in Eurozone countries and trying to impose a `one size fits all` collectivist regime on everyone. As Nigel Farage once said, a European council where member states kept their autonomy but were involved in determining trade rules and suchlike within Europe and amongst themselves would work so much better than what has been attempted to be imposed on us. The thing about European countries is that over the centuries we've been fighting each other for so long that it's become almost force of habit. So to have a forced union in such a short space of time it's no wonder that there has been so much resistance. Socialism goes in and out of fashion across Europe and, indeed, around the world over time but at the end of the day it remains a veneer on top of cultural identity.

I could ramble on and on about the pros and cons of socialism for ages but I think I'll formulate my thoughts first.

I would say your rationalization is pretty spot on in terms of the eu. And you even made it simple to understand so there is no excuse for all us dummies out here.
Peace

Originally posted by D.Wolf


As far as I know, there is no such thing as the successful countrys kicking out any less successful countrys. Greece may choose to leave. That's an other picture though.

But maybe I have missed some news

When the Eurozone forced Greece to make austerity measures, it was (in effect) forcing Greece's hand.

reply to post by Germanicus


You honestly believe that the Eurozone and IMF are governmened by America?

Um, okay.

Originally posted by sombunall
In the light of the above I don't see how the Eurozone collapse is down to socialism specifically. I think that the current debacle has been caused by ignoring the obvious differences in Eurozone countries and trying to impose a `one size fits all` collectivist regime on everyone.

If I may, I highlighted what I see is the key to this issue.

What difference though, is there between a collectivist regime and socialism?

(great post, by the way)

Originally posted by HamrHeed
I would say your rationalization is pretty spot on in terms of the eu. And you even made it simple to understand so there is no excuse for all us dummies out here.
Peace

I tried to keep it simple because I'm not that smart!

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by daskakik

 

Socialism assures equal outcome regardless of the equality of work.

The Eurozone example is a macro illustration of the fail of socialism.

it's more so the same as the fail in America, which is failed fascism. whatever they had started as, they have both become the same and it's not socialism nor communism. corporate greed and the banking industry have parasitized both all the while painting the picture that it's the peoples fault.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
Well, in America, isn't it our fault?

We elected them.

We bought the lies.

We deserve what we get.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

Well, in America, isn't it our fault?

We elected them.

We bought the lies.

We deserve what we get.

no, it's not our fault entirely when we elect officials who do not vote with the people in mind, just for who's footing the lobbying money. when our government and corporations started stacking the deck behind the scenes, that's called a crime against the people and the constitution. we vote and they became a little more deceptive, we vote for several more generations and they became even more deceptive to the point that very few have the people or the constitution in mind. last time i checked the wrong doing began in their court.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

was designed to fail - again, it was designed to fail.
the Euro was designed too usher in the new Europe,,
the long awaited propheciesed 1000 year pax romanus.
if u were part of the European Union.

old script,,

designed too fail,,no,,
bound to failure,,so its seems.

I'm slightly unclear, but it was designed with failure in mind, there was/is and expiration date. No one who signed on to the lauded coalition of assets was told what that date was or what would happen when it happened. I am understanding that the date of the dollar's expiration was 100 years after its creation - coming shortly; I'm guessing they'll both happen around the same time.

The point as it relates to the thread is that philosophical socialism is simply non existential in a reality where fiat currency rules the modes of exchange. Folks talk and pontificate about something that does not happen and cannot happen as long as government and king stand in between every single transaction in order to control both the transaction and the people. And as long as the system by which the transactions are accomplished have a totally hidden agenda, the philosophical and largely foolish discussions of capitalism, socialism, republicism, and all the isms are just exorcises in fantasy.

reply to post by beezzer


Germany is more 'Socialist" than Greece. Probably one of the most 'socialist' countries in the EU. They have vast and extensive social programs, workers rights, etc. Which is likely why their economy is successful. People dont fall through the cracks, workers are well-compensated for their labor, and families are not broken apart by economics.

Most Americans, I suspect, believe we’re losing manufacturing because we can’t compete against cheap Chinese labor. But Germany has remained a manufacturing giant notwithstanding the rise of East Asia, making high-end products with a workforce that is more unionized and better paid than ours. German exports came to $1.1 trillion in 2009 — roughly $125 billion more than we exported, though there are just 82 million Germans to our 310 million Americans. Germany’s yearly trade balance went from a deficit of $6 billion in 1998 to a surplus of $267 billion in 2008 — the same year the United States ran a trade deficit of $569 billion. Over those same 10 years, Germany’s annual growth rate per capita exceeded ours

.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by beezzer
Well, in America, isn't it our fault?

We elected them. We bought the lies. We deserve what we get.

I would agree it is our fault, to a point. Not because of who we vote for because it's not government that is the ultimate problem, it's the capitalist leaders of industry. This is what I keep trying to point out, the government we have is the result of capitalist interests, not because of our vote.

The blind acceptance of capitalism is the problem, and the ignorance of our own working class history.

(Most people are working class, proletariat, not middle class. Traditionally the middle class, petite bourgeois, is management, small shop keepers etc., those that can hire labour but generally work along side them. As apposed to true capitalists, haute bourgeois, who own capital and hire labour, but do not labour themselves.)

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by beezzer

 

Germany is more 'Socialist" than Greece. Probably one of the most 'socialist' countries in the EU. They have vast and extensive social programs, workers rights, etc. Which is likely why their economy is successful. People dont fall through the cracks, workers are well-compensated for their labor, and families are not broken apart by economics.

Social programs are not socialism. They are a reaction to capitalism, and of course supported by socialists but under socialism there would be no government hand-outs, in fact there doesn't have to be a government at all.

When the workers own the means of production government hand-outs would be unnecessary, because as a community we would be producing all we need. The only thing that keeps resources scarce is capitalism, because of it's need to make profit. Instead of welfare we would have the means to produce all we need.

Whether today's global overcapacity is seen as cause or effect of the economic crisis, one thing is certain: it isn't easy to make a profit in a world awash with overproduction. Capitalism is born in conditions of scarcity and is unable to function outside of them. So it seems logical that the crisis creates a tendency to restore these conditions artificially. But how does this affect the chances of the global economy to find a way out of its present predicament?...

Artificial scarcity in a world of overproduction: an escape that isn't

The capitalist class monopolize the means to access, produce, and distribute resources.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ANOK

 

I appreciate the well thought out reply.

I guess we can banter back and forth on definitions, but ultimately what we are seeing is a failure of a "system".

Greece's inability to maintain fiscal discipline has damaged other economies in the Eurozone. The successful countriess no longer will shoulder the burden of the less successful.

Thanx, I'm glad we can have a mature discussion about this.

Yes it is a failure of a system, that is the system of capitalism. It always fails someone all the time.

Capitalism has a cycle, called the 'business cycle' by Marx. The cycle of ups and downs that are a integral part of capitalism. No capitalist economy stays stable for long, as we are seeing now on a large scale, simply because we now have a global economy. No longer are workers competing for jobs at home, they have to compete with workers in other countries as capitalists look for cheaper ways to produce in order to make larger profits. During the down cycle is when you see the real face of capitalism, its desire for profit overrides peoples needs.

Socialism is a needs based economy, peoples needs are met before anything else. We shouldn't be competing with other people and nations but cooperating. Just think what we could do if we all cooperated instead of trying put others down to keep ourselves on top. That is what capitalism has done to us. Unnecessary competition created by artificial scarcity in order for a minority class to live privileged lives.