Just like Communism, is Socialism dying, leading to a collapse.

This articles seems to indicate that there may be some a parallels.

"Perhaps what we are witnessing in Europe, but what the politicians and the media dare not say aloud, is the implosion of the (welfare) state. The Soviet Union suddenly collapsed in 1989, when owing to the inability of communism to create wealth, the state went bankrupt, was unable to maintain its army and hold its empire together. In France, the same thing might be happening. The socialist welfare state is no longer able to maintain law and order and is abandoning entire neighbourhoods to anarchy."

LINK

It is not welfare that is collapsing it is the ratio of working youths to the (most self absorbed generation to have walked the planet) geriatrics is so unfavourable.

Not enough work is being done to allow a surplus for a welfare lifestyle. And the fault of that can be squarly aimed at those who are starting to go into retirement the me generation. :hide: Hi Mum ~;)

Can't say I'd be surprised at all. The gov'ts give out huge entitlements that encourage sloth and laziness, while the gov't and people are in constant retreat on cultural grounds.

Crazed Rabbit

No.

From another site commenting on the article

"Here's a tip: it's probably better to be unemployed in France then to be employed at Walmart in the US."

Quote:

---

The problem isn't that Socialism is unworkable, in my opinion, so much as it is simply impractical.

---

Now that's what I say about Communism and Anarchy as well. They sound good but humankind does not handle it - which means they gotta die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

They sound good but humankind does not handle it - which means they gotta die.

---

They don't sound good to me. I don't want everyone to be equal, that would mean I have to work harder. Heh.

The socialism that we're seeing to day is an stagnangt beast that functions as a filter, it's not a real model. For instance it will day, but I hope capitalism falls with that kind system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

From another site commenting on the article

"Here's a tip: it's probably better to be unemployed in France then to be employed at Walmart in the US."

---

That sums up the problem doesnt it? It's more attractive to sit around and live off of the backs of those who work than to actually be productive and get a job in welfare states. That's why they fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Socialism can't work without a strong government. A strong government puts men in positions of great power. Men with power want more power. And thus your Socialist system becomes an ironic capitalist industry, and your tax dollars are the reward, and unlike a good self-determining society, everyone but the people responsible is blamed, and it gets worse and worse, until you've got France. Or Soviet Russia. Or some equally unhappy result.

---

Ok GC but is capitalism different? No. The problem is when you add a theory to reality. I'll not go on to this tired discussion again. You may want to know that anarchism is the result of years of socialism development really. There are functions of socialism that can work without even central goverment at all. However socialism functions today to deminish the wrongs caused by capitalist mechanics, and to keep people in their place, also to make them think that there is no possible way out and that they must accept the things as they're and sell their work energy to the capitalist. In fact socialism has been helping capitalism since the first part of the previous century. Now I don't know what problems are caused in France because of evil socialism, but please do tell me I want to know (no condesendence ~D )

Quote:

---

Socialism is to Capitalism as the biosphere is to nature. Nice try, but it just won't last.

---

Nice analogy. But when the analgesic is out, you better be careful with the headache seriously.~:handball:

Quote:

---

Now that's what I say about [...] Anarchy as well.

---

*Smacks, mutters about Catalonia*
humans are perfectly willing to work together for their common good. we just teach ourselves that we don't

but back on topic:
GC is right, Capitalism feeds itself: goods and services are produced, money is made, the money is divided between the managment and the labor, the managment gets so much that they can't use it for goods and services for themselves, managment invests said money into itself, the cycle starts again

socialism has to get fed by someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Once again, Capitalism is self-propelling. Socialism is not. Capitalism can work by itself--it has it's roots in the barter economies that all the ancient civilizations out there based their economies on. It's tried and true. Socialism, while a very good idea (who wouldn't pay half their money in taxes in order to get free healthcare for all, and other utopian stuff?), just does not work. And there is no successful example of it working.

---

I agree with you but you don't understand me. Capitalism doesn't needs of socialism to "activate" itself or to mantain it's essence, but it needs socialism to keep social movements (specially revolutionary and reactionary ones) "in line", so when you've a problem with capitalistic mechanics (wich are a lot of course) you use socialism as a political weapon. For example you increase "free" healthcare, so that movement over the corner stops moaning over low levels of health in the slums, you increse pensions to the elders to do practically anything (from calming the olds to improving your public image). Socialism doesn't work because it's functioning again, as an "analgesic" or a political weapon, it's not a true model, the economical model is simply capitalism, but you throw in some socialist ideas to mantain order, stability and coherence.
Edit to add:

Quote:

---

humans are perfectly willing to work together for their common good. we just teach ourselves that we don't

---

That's fair JimBob. I'm with you. ~:cheers:

It's not that Socialism is unworkable... it's just that it's under attack due to deliberate decisions that have been made about trade and finance. The removal of restrictions on the movement of capital have undermined the state's ability to maintain reasonable social standards for its population. With capital now free to roam the globe in search of tax havens and slave labor, capital can renegotiate the social contract in the home country and argue that "competition" is forcing the removal of protections and standards for workers. Of course, that argument is true. Once everybody else is engaged in a race to the bottom, and you've committed yourself to open trade and open capital mobility, your companies will have to follow the trends towards tax avoidance and slave labor usage just to remain as viable competitors.

The solution is simple, but will not be accepted by the financial sectors who gain tremendously under the current system. Restrictions on the movement of capital need to be reinstituted so that we can recreate the conditions that existed from the end of WWII until the mid-1970's. That was a period of limited capital mobility and high taxes which also saw historically high growth rates and full employment policies. The reining in of capital allowed for the development of the social safety nets that are now under attack. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to have a financial meltdown on the scale of the Great Depression to put together the political will to fix the current system.

Quote:

---

I agree with you but you don't understand me. Capitalism doesn't needs of socialism to "activate" itself or to mantain it's essence, but it needs socialism to keep social movements (specially revolutionary and reactionary ones) "in line", so when you've a problem with capitalistic mechanics (wich are a lot of course) you use socialism as a political weapon.

---

I agree. The kinds of reforms that FDR put into place during the Great Depression were expressly to save capitalism. It's the mixed "socialist" economic policies of the New Deal and modern Europe that enabled capitalism to maintain itself. Unbridled capitalism doesn't have a very good track record. It leads to irrational booms and busts, and a naturally widening unequal distribution of wealth that guarantees social problems and market demand problems. Nineteenth century capitalist excesses lead to open class warfare culminating in communism and fascism. Not a happy result. The mixed "socialist" model that eventually developed struck a balance between the interests of the various social classes, and by reining in capitalist excesses created a more stable economic order. The dismantling of that order in favor of a neo-liberal capitalist system that transfers all possible risks and costs to workers and their families can only have a negative impact on society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

From another site commenting on the article

"Here's a tip: it's probably better to be unemployed in France then to be employed at Walmart in the US."

---

That sums up the problem doesnt it? It's more attractive to sit around and live off of the backs of those who work than to actually be productive and get a job in welfare states. That's why they fail.

---

What a silly reasoning. The fact that working for Wall Mart and K Mart is similar to slavery hasn't anything to do with socialism. Wal Mart employees work just as much (if no more) than other people living in the Western World, yet they are rewarded with no social protection and crappy wages.

"That sums up the problem with capitalism doesn't it ? Someone willing to work will be used as a slave by huge companies that don't give a crap about the workers and the people in general." ~:rolleyes:

What is the situation in Eurpe today?
There is no Socialism and all countries are moving from social market to free market economy. That also means that former socialist parties are getting more conservative (like German SPD) and that the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger.

The problem in France is that you have a minority that is not part of the society and has no share of the common wealth. Or at least that is their feeling.

But Eurpeans are not like Americans. On the long run they will not accept that big difference in society. Extreme left wing parties are getting stronger than they ever were.

So the question is not will socialism disappear like communism. The question is can the European nations find a way to keep society together or will society fall apart. The second option will lead to a giant change of the political system - peaceful or by riots. So in the end there might be a new communist dawn.

Quote:

---

Smacks, mutters about Catalonia*
humans are perfectly willing to work together for their common good. we just teach ourselves that we don't

---

I'd like to see in poor districts where governments does not give a f*** then, if gov does not pay any attention on you, why don't they work out their own way for their own good? Human nature prevents anarchy from macro-applications. That's a dream (not mine)..

GC, I'm still curious how exactly a very free market would prevent the current outsourcing to low-cost countries (that is until the market is eqalized, at a lower level than the current)? And exactly how would you prevent oligopolies and monopolies?

And are you sure that you can start a union and still be employed at Wal-Mart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

It is not welfare that is collapsing it is the ratio of working youths to the (most self absorbed generation to have walked the planet) geriatrics is so unfavourable.

Not enough work is being done to allow a surplus for a welfare lifestyle. And the fault of that can be squarly aimed at those who are starting to go into retirement the me generation. :hide: Hi Mum ~;)

---

Yep, people are protesting in Belgium right now because they want to be able to retire at 55. ~:eek:
There was even a nationwide strike against the 'generation pact' that would make this impossible (or less likely anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And are you sure that you can start a union and still be employed at Wal-Mart?

---

You can't at MickeyD's iirc. Which imho is in itself a violation of capitalism, unions should be a valid tool of the employed. When they start going nationwide and across sectors you get ptoblems though...

As for Europe: the 'poor' eastern parts will save us, pretty much all talent and most companies will move to there because the taxes are so much lower, thios will force the western part to adapt or crumble. I'm not sure which of the two will happen though :hide:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Once again, Capitalism is self-propelling. Socialism is not. Capitalism can work by itself--it has it's roots in the barter economies that all the ancient civilizations out there based their economies on. It's tried and true. Socialism, while a very good idea (who wouldn't pay half their money in taxes in order to get free healthcare for all, and other utopian stuff?), just does not work. And there is no successful example of it working.

~:handball:

---

Ok.Allright...GC take a look at the Scandinavia.:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

They don't have to work for Wal Mart. Lord knows there are a hell of alot more markets around here than Wal Mart.

Perhaps it might also have something to do with Wal Mart's employees never having bothered to form a Union? (that I know of)

---

Huh, when there's none hiring around you but WalMart, then you have to go for WalMart, since being jobless in US = social and economical death.

And, I think it was well known that WalMart fired loads and loads of workers just because they thought about forming an Union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Once again, Capitalism is self-propelling. Socialism is not. Capitalism can work by itself--it has it's roots in the barter economies that all the ancient civilizations out there based their economies on. It's tried and true. Socialism, while a very good idea (who wouldn't pay half their money in taxes in order to get free healthcare for all, and other utopian stuff?), just does not work. And there is no successful example of it working.

---

Thing is, socialism worked for 30 years (roughly from 1945 to 1970), while economical liberalism never ever worked. We tried it at the end of the 19th, then we had the 20's/30's crisis, and we are heading directly toward the same kind of huge crap that plagued the early 20th.
Just as in the 20's, there's a rise a political extremism, religiousness, nationalism, racism that is (IMO) mostly due to the rise of boundless liberalism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Actually, Socialism and a Welfare state are very workable ideas. The problem is that is ungodly difficult to implement, given that you need a strong government to guide it. Considering that a strong government is also freer to skim off the top, it's a catch-22. The problem isn't that Socialism is unworkable, in my opinion, so much as it is simply impractical.

---

The state apparatus continues to grow in every modern country. This is due firstly to the growing complexity and interdependence both within each society and between different societies. And secondly to the law of bureaucracy that says all bureaucracies will feed on society if left unchecked.

This phenomenon has nothing to do with socialism.

Margaret Thatcher tried -- and God knows she tried -- to cut back state influence and bureaucracy over nearly twenty years of majority government, and the end result was that the size of the British state apparatus grew with over ten percent and British society was more regulated than ever before. The same thing can be observed in the United States where the federal government grew even during the Reagan years, notwithstanding the Gipper's motto that government is peoples' worst enemy.

The explanation for that is to be found in the free market policies that these two leaders implemented. Free markets are not free at all, they have to construed and regulated in order to work. The more services a state turns over to the market, the more regulation is necessary, the more arbitration will be required, the more damage will have to be controlled and paid for by the state through taxes (think: savings & loan scandal in the United States).

And narrowing 'Socialism' down to certain problems in France as one poster did can hardly be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Just as in the 20's, there's a rise a political extremism, religiousness, nationalism, racism that is (IMO) mostly due to the rise of boundless liberalism

---

Quite. :bow:

I take it that you too are a Karl Polanyi fan?

Inept, corrupt politicians will be the death of parts of Europe, not socialism. Just look at the average French politician; racist, corrupt, inept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh please, the only people who work at Wal Mart that couldn't get a job somewhere else are Illegal Immigrants.

---

A company like Wal-Mart is employing illegal immigrants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh please, the only people who work at Wal Mart that couldn't get a job somewhere else are Illegal Immigrants, and quite frankly they can reep what they sowed by breaking the law in the first place.

---

Even if this was true (which I doubt, given the few WalMarts I 'visited'), WalMart isn't the only company that hires workers for low wage (especially if they live in Vietnam, Cambodia, China), and don't give a crap about them. We also have
McDonalds
Coca Cola
General Motors
Nike
Adidas
And the list goes on...

The best way to maximize your profit is minimizing your costs. So they start with workforce.. All hail to Capitalism !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

McDonalds? lol. Man, maybe you should stick to your own country. You don't know what you're talking about. The Fast Food industry is a great gig for entry level applicants.

---

I guess you never worked for McDonalds ~:rolleyes: I had 3 jobs so far (I'm only 19, so I try to get some low paid job in the summer between 2 years of studies), and working for McDo was *by far* the worse of them. I might have been lucky with the other two (a french supermarket and a small company), but I swear I'll never work for McDo anymore (note that I'll never eat there too, after seeing how they prepare their 'food').

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I take it that you too are a Karl Polanyi fan?

---

Not really :-P My knowledge about economy is seriously limited. (I more or less read Marx, Ricardo, Smith and a few modern french authors not even worth mentioning, but that's about it).
Yet, I think one doesn't have to be a genius to find out that modern issues such as political and religious extremism, nationalism, racism are somehow linked with the social/economics situation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

(I more or less read Marx, Ricardo, Smith and a few modern french authors not even worth mentioning, but that's about it)

---

Daniel Cohen?

I said people not even worth mentioning ~;)
I never read Daniel Cohen's work, but I think he's a fairly important economist.

I mostly read what I call the basic leftist cheap Bible : books explaining why globalisation is evil, the benefits of social-democracy, why NGO are corrupted, etc. I can't name the authors, because these books bored me.