DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Can Capitalism Support the Welfare State?

**AbraxiaAsus** · 10-08-2011, 11:53 AM

None of the states you list above are socialist.

As P.J. O'Rourke wryly put it in his book Eat the Rich, "the Swedish Social Democrats made socialism work by not actually giving the Swedes any."

Sadly, Mr O'Rourke hasn't been that amusing in twenty years. He's also wrong.

Britain under Labour in the 1970s was much more socialist than Sweden was then or is now. And the Britons came up with their own wry term to describe the result - "lemon socialism." (The government nationalized one money-losing enterprise after another, causing each one to lose even more money. After Margaret Thatcher spun them off, some of them found private owners who figured out how they could make money again.) Waiting until an industry is failing to nationalize it is not a recipe for success. They were (among many other things) hoping that they could magically return to the levels of production they saw before WWII, even though the empire for whom those goods were produced was gone.

And while Thatcher's supporters may be able to point to some successes, the failures are significant. The British Rail system, which was one of the best in the world into the 1980s, is a complete disaster which needs billions spent on infrastructure. And the next time you meet someone from England, ask their opinion of British Telecom.

The key feature required for a state to be socialist is state control of productive enterprises. As Marx described it, this was the intermediate step on the road from capitalism to communism, under which the workers control the means of production directly and the state withers away. Let's take it as granted. And remember you said "control".

Throughout their construction of generous social welfare systems, all of those countries retained private ownership of industry, hence O'Rourke's quip. While Germany may not be a "true" Socialist state because the state doesn't OWN the means of production, it certainly does control it.

For example: the German healthcare system is privately-run, but completely state-controlled: the government dictates what rates will be charged for procedures, what insurance premiums will be charged, and even what profits the insurers may make.

If legislative controls aren't enough, there's physical ownership: the German state of Bavaria owns a large chunk of WV, and many other companies are partially state-owned, either at the state or Federal level.

German business is very tightly controlled and regulated. Their social welfare system -while partially private- is tightly controlled and regulated. Their government had safety nets in place for economic downturns like the one we're experiencing and kept their books so well balanced that even several years into a recession, they still have the money to bail out other nations.

And in the process, they have cut NONE of their social programs.

While you may argue that they're not a Socialist country, I would point out that there less distance between Germany and an idealized Socialist state than there is between Germany and the United States.

The central irony is that for the government to spread wealth around, someone has to make it, and governments simply aren't good at doing that. That is an untruth, but one commonly believed.

10-08-2011, 11:53 AM	#6
AbraxiaAsus Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 428 Senior Member	None of the states you list above are socialist. As P.J. O'Rourke wryly put it in his book Eat the Rich, "the Swedish Social Democrats made socialism work by not actually giving the Swedes any." Sadly, Mr O'Rourke hasn't been that amusing in twenty years. He's also wrong. Britain under Labour in the 1970s was much more socialist than Sweden was then or is now. And the Britons came up with their own wry term to describe the result - "lemon socialism." (The government nationalized one money-losing enterprise after another, causing each one to lose even more money. After Margaret Thatcher spun them off, some of them found private owners who figured out how they could make money again.) Waiting until an industry is failing to nationalize it is not a recipe for success. They were (among many other things) hoping that they could magically return to the levels of production they saw before WWII, even though the empire for whom those goods were produced was gone. And while Thatcher's supporters may be able to point to some successes, the failures are significant. The British Rail system, which was one of the best in the world into the 1980s, is a complete disaster which needs billions spent on infrastructure. And the next time you meet someone from England, ask their opinion of British Telecom. The key feature required for a state to be socialist is state control of productive enterprises. As Marx described it, this was the intermediate step on the road from capitalism to communism, under which the workers control the means of production directly and the state withers away. Let's take it as granted. And remember you said "control". Throughout their construction of generous social welfare systems, all of those countries retained private ownership of industry, hence O'Rourke's quip. While Germany may not be a "true" Socialist state because the state doesn't OWN the means of production, it certainly does control it. For example: the German healthcare system is privately-run, but completely state-controlled: the government dictates what rates will be charged for procedures, what insurance premiums will be charged, and even what profits the insurers may make. If legislative controls aren't enough, there's physical ownership: the German state of Bavaria owns a large chunk of WV, and many other companies are partially state-owned, either at the state or Federal level. German business is very tightly controlled and regulated. Their social welfare system -while partially private- is tightly controlled and regulated. Their government had safety nets in place for economic downturns like the one we're experiencing and kept their books so well balanced that even several years into a recession, they still have the money to bail out other nations. And in the process, they have cut NONE of their social programs. While you may argue that they're not a Socialist country, I would point out that there less distance between Germany and an idealized Socialist state than there is between Germany and the United States. The central irony is that for the government to spread wealth around, someone has to make it, and governments simply aren't good at doing that. That is an untruth, but one commonly believed.
	Quote