The Eurozone collapse, socialism writ large.

reply to post by beezzer


The Eurozone was never about socialism. It was about forming a trading block. It grew out of EFTA (European free trade association) The need that people have to see "Reds under the bed" generates a lot of confusion. The simple fact is that having a trade zone led to moving to a single currency. Which is not socialist because the underlying ideologies werte never socialist.

The facts are very important!

Originally posted by beezzer

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?

Apologies for coming to the party late and then firing off an ill-thought out post, I fear I have given the impression that I'm somehow in favour of socialism. What I meant by a collectivist regime is where a set of rules, laws, legislation etc is imposed on all member states regardless of suitability or national sovereignty in order to satisfy a political ideal. Perhaps I should have described it as an international dictatorship that is working towards its own political goal (whatever that may be) and ignoring any negative side-effects on member states.

I'm no political scientist so my definitions may not tally with most other people's but for me socialism means 'the workers controlling the method of production in order to take a fair share of the profits'. I see an attempted centralisation of power in Europe and a stripping away of sovereignty which may very well revert back to the usual loose confederation of warring tribes very quickly. In short, it's a power-grab by various powerful parties that looks like it's about to fall flat.

Originally posted by ANOK

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.

Indeed. I'm merely using the OP's common American terminology against itself. I'm not saying Germany is Socialist. Merely that they have a far, far more extensive social welfare system the the Greeks.

In the US "Socialism" is used by the neo-con right as a catch all for anything other than total, unfettered gangster capitalism.

An interesting discussion on socialism here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Didn't read that thread but it seems the OP is talking about government social programs, not socialism an economic system whereby the workers own and control the means of production.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Yeah I noticed you put socialism in quotations, but still thought it worth pointing out.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Didn't read that thread but it seems the OP is talking about government social programs, not socialism an economic system whereby the workers own and control the means of production.

Actually, I was trying to compare the failure in the Eurozone to a generalized failure seen in countries that have adopted socialism as a form of government.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Didn't read that thread but it seems the OP is talking about government social programs, not socialism an economic system whereby the workers own and control the means of production.

Actually, I was trying to compare the failure in the Eurozone to a generalized failure seen in countries that have adopted socialism as a form of government.

So, which countries are you saying have 'adopted Socialism as a form of government'?

Yes it's pretty clear that the richer countries are subsidizing the poorer ones but...

People need to stop thinking of the Eurozone as different countries because it's pretty clear that the end goal for Europe is a 'United States of Europe', which is no different to the USA really... if the Federal Government didn't exist the 50 states of the USA would all be independent 'countries' and the wealthier ones wouldn't be subsidising the poorer ones as they are now because of the union.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Didn't read that thread but it seems the OP is talking about government social programs, not socialism an economic system whereby the workers own and control the means of production.

Actually, I was trying to compare the failure in the Eurozone to a generalized failure seen in countries that have adopted socialism as a form of government.

So, which countries are you saying have 'adopted Socialism as a form of government'?

Venesuela.
Any number of european countries.
The UK has socialistic healthcare which is an utter failure.

Originally posted by beezzer


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.

Not. Even. Close.

Greece's financial problems are because of unregulated international lending organizations (banks) who propped up the entire EU economy on bad loans. Blaming Greece for the actions of Bankers in northern Europe is as absurd as blaming your ailing grandmother for the US economy.

Originally posted by mc1km
Yes it's pretty clear that the richer countries are subsidizing the poorer ones but...

People need to stop thinking of the Eurozone as different countries because it's pretty clear that the end goal for Europe is a 'United States of Europe', which is no different to the USA really... if the Federal Government didn't exist the 50 states of the USA would all be independent 'countries' and the wealthier ones wouldn't be subsidising the poorer ones as they are now because of the union.

But are these european "states" going to cede their sovereigntywillingly?

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by beezzer


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.

Not. Even. Close.

Greece's financial problems are because of unregulated international lending organizations (banks) who propped up the entire EU economy on bad loans. Blaming Greece for the actions of Bankers in northern Europe is as absurd as blaming your ailing grandmother for the US economy.

Then why is it that only Greece, currently, has to inact austerity measures?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Germanicus

 

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

Um, okay.

Well, the IMF is headed by an American-trained economist named Christine LaGuard. It was temporarily controlled by John Lipsky, an America, after its former leader was set up on false charges in the US.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Didn't read that thread but it seems the OP is talking about government social programs, not socialism an economic system whereby the workers own and control the means of production.

Actually, I was trying to compare the failure in the Eurozone to a generalized failure seen in countries that have adopted socialism as a form of government.

So, which countries are you saying have 'adopted Socialism as a form of government'?

Venesuela.
Any number of european countries.
The UK has socialistic healthcare which is an utter failure.

Oh, beezer. Are you saying think Venezuela is in the Eurozone?

And no, the UK is not a "Socialist form of Government'.

Face to the Palm.

Originally posted by beezzer


Then why is it that only Greece, currently, has to inact austerity measures?

Because they are the weakest economy in the EU, and therefore investors have fled their economy ahead of the collapse of those banks which gave them bad loans. NoT because they are "Socialist' as you continue to claim.

Seriously, this is all VERY basic info.

Funny how the OP mentions Venezuela but fails to also mention Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway.

Danes pay about 40% of their income in taxes, but yet all of those countries are on the top on lists about the most prosperous places on earth.

Also Greece should have never been allowed into the Eurozone, everyone knew that Greece was just a ticking time bomb since their economy was one of the weakest in Europe

reply to post by stanguilles7
The UK is not.

Their healthcare IS.

Originally posted by beezzer

The UK has socialistic healthcare which is an utter failure.

Didn't we go over this?

Europe does not have social healthcare, it has national health care.

Nationalism is government/state ownership. Socialism is worker ownership.

Nationalization (British English spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated and owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalization, but may also be municipalization.

en.wikipedia.org...

Social is not socialism, just like anarchy is not anarchism.

social
[soh-shuhl]   Origin
so·cial
   [soh-shuhl] Show IPA
adjective

5.
of or pertaining to human society, especially as a body divided into classes according to status: social rank.

dictionary.reference.com...

It is not short for socialism which again is an economic system whereby the workers, the proletariat, own the means of production. The proletariat is the overwhelming majority in most nations.

I don't know why you're all so against national health care anyway, it's much easier to deal with than the system you have in the states, that causes your health costs to be simply ridiculous. All it does is make lots of profit that only a few benefit from, and the majority in debt to insurance companies. Why anyone with brains could support that is beyond me. How is a government department running it any worse than a private company who's only motivation is profit? At least with government you have a say, try telling a private company how they should run things. Necessary public services should never be privatized imo, I would prefer nationalization in those cases.

Look at British Rail when it was privatized, they got more government subsidies to keep them afloat than when they were nationalised.

BRITISH RAIL PRIVATISATION: WHAT WENT WRONG?

reply to post by ANOK
Because my uncle (who's British) died last year because at 72, he was deemed too old to receive a kidney transplant.
YAY nationalized healthcare!