[scemHeish]

If we are to survive the looming catastrophe, we need to face the truth - Telegraph

I found this to be a very good article since it gets to the heart of the matter about recent budgetary stuff here and in Europe.

We know that socialism/communism can't be supported. But can a robust welfare state funded by capitalism (Europe/America) work long-term?

That's really the heart of the matter.

[ZESINTERS]

I think the answer of "no" is pretty clear...

[trilochana.nejman]

We know that socialism/communism can't be supported.

Do we?

But can a robust welfare state funded by capitalism (Europe/America) work long-term?

Yes: Germany, Japan and the Scandivanian countries all prove that a healthy and successful Socialist state is... healthy and successful.

The fact that the UK has given into Rupert Murdoch's influence and is in the process of shooting themselves in the foot really doesn't prove anything.

[P9CCd35R]

We know that socialism/communism can't be supported. But can a robust welfare state funded by capitalism (Europe/America) work long-term?

Corporate or individual?

[cut sifted ephedra sinica]

Do we?



Yes: Germany, Japan and the Scandivanian countries all prove that a healthy and successful Socialist state is... healthy and successful.

The fact that the UK has given into Rupert Murdoch's influence and is in the process of shooting themselves in the foot really doesn't prove anything.

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."

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.)

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.

Throughout their construction of generous social welfare systems, all of those countries retained private ownership of industry, hence O'Rourke's quip.

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. (Printing money destroys, not creates, wealth thanks to inflation.)

[AbraxiaAsus]

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.

[Glanteeignile]

Ok, just to be clear.

Pretty much every European democracy would be classified as a democratic socialist state. Even the United States to a lesser degree. All have a good degree of capitalism in them.

If you think central planning of an economy from top to bottom (classic socialism) works, you haven't been paying attention.

The question of the article is can the capitalism support these socialist democracies long-term. In other words, is a big welfare state sustainable?

[*Playergirl*]

Ok, just to be clear.

Pretty much every European democracy would be classified as a democratic socialist state. Even the United States to a lesser degree. All have a good degree of capitalism in them.

If you think central planning of an economy from top to bottom (classic socialism) works, you haven't been paying attention.

The question of the article is can the capitalism support these socialist democracies long-term. In other words, is a big welfare state sustainable?

The answer simply is "no". Public housing, food stamps, etc are not long-term solutions yet too many use them as their primary means of support/income. That wasn't the intent of these programs but people prove time and time again that if you put your hand out then they'll keep taking and taking and taking.

[cristmiff]

The answer simply is "no". Public housing, food stamps, etc are not long-term solutions yet too many use them as their primary means of support/income. That wasn't the intent of these programs but people prove time and time again that if you put your hand out then they'll keep taking and taking and taking.

Lyndon Johnson farts in your direction

[NumsAmenniams]

Lyndon Johnson farts in your direction

So that's the Johnson treatment...

[UrUROFlS]

Pretty much every European democracy would be classified as a democratic socialist state. Even the United States to a lesser degree. All have a good degree of capitalism in them.

"Pretty much everybody"? Who died and made you the grand master of public opinion?

in the last several years, I've seen people argue that we can't have universal healthcare, the EPA, the FDA and the Federal Reserve becayse these are all "Socialist" institutions, so there are a lot of people out there who believe that ANY government control or oversight is "Socialism".

If you think central planning of an economy from top to bottom (classic socialism) works, you haven't been paying attention. Never said that it did. But it's a slightly more effective shell game than derugulating everything.

I also feel the need to point out that the concept of "Socialism" existed before Marx, and while I know you anti-Communists love dragging his corpse around, his definition of the word is not the be all and end all of every arguement.

[sensation]

The answer simply is "no". Public housing, food stamps, etc are not long-term solutions yet too many use them as their primary means of support/income. That wasn't the intent of these programs but people prove time and time again that if you put your hand out then they'll keep taking and taking and taking.

Ah, Zombie Reagan! So glad you could join us.

Once again, Sweden and Germany prove you wrong; we're always going to have people who can't take care of themselves. Rather than lettin them starve in the streets, doesn't it make more sense to make sure they're taken care of?

[Nutpoode]

Once again, Sweden and Germany prove you wrong; we're always going to have people who can't take care of themselves. Rather than lettin them starve in the streets, doesn't it make more sense to make sure they're taken care of?

"can't" is one thing. "won't" is another. The difference between the two is where support of the welfare system breaks down. Too many people take advantage of the system. I really wish progressives would run with this understanding, they'd get a lot more support from conservatives on helping the poor. Unfortunately it's a built-in constituency for the left, which is what exacerbates the disconnect with the right.

[uC4F0NVL]

"Pretty much everybody"? Who died and made you the grand master of public opinion?

in the last several years, I've seen people argue that we can't have universal healthcare, the EPA, the FDA and the Federal Reserve becayse these are all "Socialist" institutions, so there are a lot of people out there who believe that ANY government control or oversight is "Socialism".

You are confusing the question of whether these program can be sustained and arguments that variants of socialism are bad so shouldn't be implemented. For the sake of argument, let's assume the welfare state is wonderful in the theoretical world. Is it sustainable as presently implemented? Will it kill the economy it depends upon? Is it viable given demographic trends?

[maxsobq]

You are confusing the question of whether these program can be sustained and arguments that variants of socialism are bad so shouldn't be implemented. For the sake of argument, let's assume the welfare state is wonderful in the theoretical world. Is it sustainable as presently implemented? Will it kill the economy it depends upon? Is it viable given demographic trends?

No it's not sustainable and the solution is rather simple but difficult to attain: Jobs.

[Adamdjeffe]

You are confusing the question of whether these program can be sustained and arguments that variants of socialism are bad so shouldn't be implemented. For the sake of argument, let's assume the welfare state is wonderful in the theoretical world. Is it sustainable as presently implemented? Will it kill the economy it depends upon? Is it viable given demographic trends?

I'm not confusing anything. I was simply pointing out that your notion that everyone agrees on what is and isn't Socialism simply isn't the case.

As to the question of whether or not a Socialist welfare state is sustainable, I direct you attention (again!) to the nation of Germany.

[Dastyh]

As to the question of whether or not a Socialist welfare state is sustainable, I direct you attention (again!) to the nation of Germany.

Of interest tonight Tavis Smiley and Prof Cornel West of Princeton U were on Nightline detailing how they've taken to
the road together to implore the President to create jobs, BEFORE the powderkeg blows.
So my take of their critique is that a socialist state is unsustainable, and people would rather work. Tavis said that people are chagrined
over the Presidents "compromises, capitulation" to the GOP.

[Saduyre9de]

Of interest tonight Tavis Smiley and Prof Cornel West of Princeton U were on Nightline detailing how they've taken to
the road together to implore the President to create jobs, BEFORE the powderkeg blows.
So my take of their critique is that a socialist state is unsustainable, and people would rather work.

I'd argue that the poltical discourse in this country has shifted so far to the Right in the last 30 years that someone like Cornel West is seen as a raving Leftie FOR taking about how people need jobs and the state needs to do something to help create them (pre-emptive strike: the answer is NOT "tax cuts").

We're so far from having an actual political Left involved in the discourse that it's not funny. We're so far along our current path that any discussion of a modern welfare state isn't even on the table, yet defunding the EPA is.

[erelvenewmeva]

We're so far from having an actual political Left involved in the discourse that it's not funny. We're so far along our current path that any discussion of a modern welfare state isn't even on the table, yet defunding the EPA is.

[KkJvrG4d]

Ah, Zombie Reagan! So glad you could join us.

Once again, Sweden and Germany prove you wrong; we're always going to have people who can't take care of themselves. Rather than lettin them starve in the streets, doesn't it make more sense to make sure they're taken care of?

Ah, Liberal apologist!

Sweden and Germany prove me right. They have public assistance systems geared toward getting families work and supporting them while they work until they are self-sufficient. They don't cut people checks without any sort of strategy or knowledge as to where the money is going. The goal of the US public assistance isn't to create a worker but to replace a source of income. In this case, the US spends a lot of money (arguably a lot more than the countries you cite) with less results. In your zeal to play the left wing versus right wing game, you fail to take into account that a moderate/liberal may actually be for public assistance but not in the form that it exists today; which, again, is unsustainable.