Some people (spuriousmonkey) believe it came from the social inequalities, and the "noble people or governments" fixing that "problem".

That's the biggest load of shit I ever heard, he might as well have his head in a toilet.

Socialism in Europe came from the condition that plagued Europe after WW2.

What was that condition? NO ECONOMY LEFT.

So what was done about it? The US rebuilt their economies (Marshall Plan was just a pittence compared to what we really did).

Well what did the Governments do? They were the ones getting the money, they were the ones charged with re-establishing an Economy. They decided to command the Economy from the top down. Rather than allow a fully free market, because the US aid was not going in the form of loans to private citizens of those nations, but as loans to the nations themselves.

So in a since it was our faults too?

But, mainly it was the want of the Europeans to control their economies (it is the Aristocrats in charge of Europe. I love how Europeans think they are a democracy of the people. The Aristocrats and old blood of Europe has regained controll of that land, and unified it into a single economic unit. For their benefit of course. It only happens to benefit yourselves).

Lends truth to the statement that self-interests over the long term provides for the greater good.

Anyway, read "The Commanding Heights".

I know, I over-simplify things so much that perhaps stuff is lost, but for the most part I've covered a LOT of aspects of what's really going on in Europe.

I've covered the fact that Europe today is established by its condition and dependency on the US in 1946.

I've covered the fact that those who made the decisions of the European economic system, had no thought in mind of the condition of the people or "social equality".

I've covered the fact that those in charge of Economic decisions are those noble (or ignoble) class often referred to as the "Aristocracy".

The later is not so much in "The Commanding Heights" but is evidenced by all the Government officials who end-up going to the Bilderberger's meetings and so-forth. While some believe they meet to discuss future relations with Reptilian over-lords in the center of the Earth, the reality is that they simply meet probably just to keep relations and pass some business ideas. Most of the economic decisions (structurally) were made back in the late '40s and early '50s and are no longer a concern of the politicians.

So Owen, Fourier, Proudhon, Winstanley, Munzer, Marx etc all lived after WWII?

Socialism in Europe came from the condition that plagued Europe after WW2.

What was that condition? NO ECONOMY LEFT.


First, don't get to smug about the superiority of the USA's less socialist economy. With the USA's superior percapita natural resources the USA should have a better economy than Europe. On the other hand the USA's military spending is a dead weight sucking the USA's economy downward. To compare Germany's economy to the USA's economy you must create cash values for Germany's healthcare and Higher Education. I believe ( but am not positive ) that real percapita income in a few European nations is higher than the USA's per capita income. GDP measures to much garbage and I don't like that statistic.



The destruction of Europe and Japan explains why USA, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Chile and Argentina did so well economically after WW2. The destruction of Europe does not explain why the European peoples chose to rebuild out of the war with a somewhat more Socialist government/economy. For that you must look to a history larger than WW2. To understand what was shaping European thinking let's start with a quote from their best-selling book:

For if a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, comes into your synagogue, and a poor man in filthy clothing also comes in and you pay special attention to him who wears the fine clothing, and say, "Sit here in a good place;" and you tell the poor man, "Stand there," or "Sit by my footstool; haven't you shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers. Didn't God choose those who are poor in this world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which he promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Don't the rich oppress you, and personally drag you before the courts?

James 2:2 through 2:6



The word "poor" shows up 174 times in the Bible and in half of those usages of the word poor you can see the roots of socialism. There has always been a recognition that whether that the poor are poor because they and their parents made bad decisions or whether the poor are poor because the powerful have oppressed the poor, that either case having no concern for the poor shows a lack of kindness, a disregard for religious instruction, and a breaking of the social contract that gives the poor a chance to work their way out of poverty in exchange for the poor renouncing their right to be anarchists and criminals.

The American Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the French Revolution, the rise of the labor movement and unions, and the Russian Revolution all foreshadowed the creation of European Socialism. These events all took place before World War Two. Feudal Nobility was just like the Mafia. The "GodFather" was a Feudal Lord. The Kings and Dukes were organized crime. Europe and most of the world prior to 1900 were ruled by kleptocracies.

Socialism stifles Competition which in turn reduces effort and creativity and thereby stagnates the economy. The only form of government and economy less productive than Communism is kleptocracy which also stifles competition effort and creativity. Competition in which the established powers make unfair rules that everybody must submit to for the purpose of enhancing their power is a kleptocratic form of competition. The only form of government / competition / economy that is less productive than Kleptocracy is anarchy / no rules restricting competition, everybody is equally free to steal and kill. It is better to live under the rule of a Mafia Don than to live on the turf of competing street gangs. Socialism was a noble but failed experiment in controlling competition for the sake of creating kindness and opportunity for everyone.

Spuriousmonkey was absolutely correct to believe that socialism came from the social inequalities, and the "noble people or governments" fixing that "problem". I am afraid that it is you who might as well have your head in a toilet or at least had your head somewhere other than in history books studying the world prior to World War Two.

id say that socialism came out of WW2 because cities had been leveled and farms had been destroyed, the only way to get back to normal was for everyone to work together for one common goal, if they all just did their own little thing then most of britain wolud live in 1room shacks with no electricity, by worknig for the government they were able to slowly rebuild everyones homes and grow everyones food

Socialism was there before the WW2.

Well what did the Governments do? They were the ones getting the money, they were the ones charged with re-establishing an Economy. They decided to command the Economy from the top down. Rather than allow a fully free market, because the US aid was not going in the form of loans to private citizens of those nations, but as loans to the nations themselves.

Funny how economic growth was higher in Europe in the 50's through to 70's than it is now.

Europe is full of socialists now. :mad:

Ummm, Europe has been full of socialists for well over 60 years. At the moment it is full of socialists, democrats, right wing economic weirdos, greens, liberals, conservatives, and just about everyone else. Would you like to show us a graph showing that Europe has had a net increase in socialists in the past decade?

Nah, my session is over and now the reality has but one word -> relaxation,
but that's what I've been told by a few friends in Austria, Estonia and of course it's all scandinavia.

Have a good relaxation!
But from a different POV, the UK is overrun with conservatives, given their near total domination of the press, monopolisation of most gvt policies for the past 28 years, etc. Yet people still complain about too many socialists in the country.

Where did socialism in Europe come from?

my best guess is, From HELL

Which I am sure you'll be happy to point out on a map.

well its somewhere in that sinkhole between cuba, canada and mexico ;)

Give me a map prior to 1990 and ill point it out

*cough* Soviet Union *cough*

Freemason I assume you never heard about WWI? If you premuse to know what you are saying...at least know what you are saying. Let’s see how your “argument” (should I shame the English language) stacks up:


Socialism in Europe came from the condition that plagued Europe after WW2.

Actually no socialism in Europe was there prior to WWII, the markets collapsed, capitalism did fail. The region was thrown in economic turmoil post-WWI, and if you knew about a man named John Maynard Keynes who saved the western liberal democratic system with what you would call “socialism” you would know that Europe could not maintain her lassiez-faire economy for much longer due to the massive income inequality, and WWI proved that the “psychology of society” of pre-1914 was unsuited to the realities of a population who could see what government planning could do, create full employment. What you forget is the US herself also went Keynesian post-WWII in a big way, wasn’t there a law passed demanding full employment in the American economy? If you continue to pretend as if you know what you are talking about Free at least know what you are saying.

So what was done about it? The US rebuilt their economies (Marshall Plan was just a pittence compared to what we really did).

The US assisted in rebuilding their economies yes, because you had to, you needed an export market. Let’s not forget that if the US did not rebuild Europe Western Europe would have gone communist without a Soviet invasion, but rather by elections. If the United States did not give Europe money, the world would be a very different place. The US did not start the Marshall Plan so much from altruism but sheer necessity.

They decided to command the Economy from the top down. Rather than allow a fully free market, because the US aid was not going in the form of loans to private citizens of those nations, but as loans to the nations themselves.

Germany didn’t, she let the market do its job and in return created an extensive and very successful social investment state. Under this rule Western European economies grew at the fastest rate in their history, the co-ordination btwn government and business worked well for Europe, and it did for the US as well. You don’t think the US didn’t have this system?

Lends truth to the statement that self-interests over the long term provides for the greater good.

Tell that to the millions of ppl in 1929-1941 who suffered under the Great Depression; tell that to the 9 million dead on the battle fields of Europe in WWI? Governments need to intervene in the economy, the economy left alone is a beast that creates inequality of wealth so bad that revolution is virtually inevitable. I agree that the markets should do most of the job, but it cannot do it all. You cannot forget that the economy is only part of the equation, equality is the flip side of the coin, and a democracy cannot work in tandem with a capitalist economy in its existential form.

I've covered the fact that Europe today is established by its condition and dependency on the US in 1946./i]

Then why is the US indebted to Europe?

[i] I've covered the fact that those who made the decisions of the European economic system, had no thought in mind of the condition of the people or "social equality".

You’ve covered nothing…where did you get this illusion from? The European policy makers had to bring the condition of the people in mind, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered with the social investment state, if European governments did not change the nature of their economies worse would have happened.

FreeMason you simply have no concept of history…

Kind of an amusing trend going on in Socialist Europe....

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_13/b3876165_mz035.htm

"Millions of elderly Germans received a notice from the Health & Social Security Ministry earlier this month that struck a damaging blow to the welfare state. The terse statement informed them that their pensions were being cut. The reductions come as a stop-gap measure to control Germany's ballooning pension crisis"

"Governments across Western Europe are racing to curb pension benefits. In Italy, the government plans to raise the minimum retirement age from 57 to 60, while France will require that civil servants put in 40 years rather than 37.5 to qualify for a full pension. The reforms are coming despite tough opposition from unions, leftist politicians, and pensioners' groups."

The solution....

"Some countries, such as Britain and the Netherlands, have responded by making individuals and their employers assume more of the responsibility for pensions"

<<cough>><<cough>>. Who does that sound like? The United States? :eek:

But they may have already dug a hole to deep.....

"Just as worrisome is the toll being exacted on the private sector. Corporate contributions to state pension systems -- which make up 19.5% of total ross pay in Germany -- add to Europe's already bloated labor costs. That, in turn, blunts manufacturers' competitiveness and keeps unemployment rates high"

"Pensions account for an average 21% of government spending across the European Union. The U.S. Social Security system, by contrast, consumes just 4.8% of GDP"

Looks like all is not well in socialist land. That is because such wonderful benefits and low population growth will cause 2 workers to every one retiree. The EU is even talking about privatizing many pension systems and dropping public ones altogether. Socialism may die a painful death by the mid 21st century.

You can't even compare the EU to the US in the same breath, by 2050 or 2100 the median age of a European will be 53! The US won't even be close to that, the EU has a reason to privitize the US really doesn't.

Socialism never picked up in North America because there was always someplace else to go for the poor and underprivileged. If you wanted, you could travel west to seek your fortunes. Back then this meant endless opportunity for anyone who wanted it.

In Europe, there was literally no place to go no. No opportunities to get a leg up. Hence socialism.

Socialism never picked up in North America because there was always someplace else to go for the poor and underprivileged. If you wanted, you could travel west to seek your fortunes. Back then this meant endless opportunity for anyone who wanted it.
No Americas way of dealing with the poor was and always been the imprisoning of Blacks bound up in ghettoe fortresses or the segregated South or Native Americans locked on reservations . Neither could go anywhere without encountering legal resistance and oppression .

America had less workers per unit resource than, say, Germany did. We were stretched sea to shining sea, our workers had autos and went to movies and owned more than one set of clothes. No such luck with the vast majority of Europeans.
Americans have always had a much stronger attachment to material rights and property, since we have so much of it.
Basically exactly what Xerxes said.

Americans have always had a much stronger attachment to material rights and property
FILTHY, CAPITALISTIC IMPERIALIZTS!!!

We were stretched sea to shining sea, our workers had autos and went to movies and owned more than one set of clothes. No such luck with the vast majority of Europeans.
The Europeans had empires to send their immigrants to as well as America avidly seeking immigration from those shores . That was their shining sea to shining sea . How do you think Australia was filled up there was always somewhere to go for Europeans .

Americans have always had a much stronger attachment to material rights and property, since we have so much of it.
Not if you were an African American living in abject poverty in the South or Native american living on a reservation . Curious this is a fact Americans never bring into the conversation when extolling the virtues of their economic system .

The Europeans had COLONIES to send their EMmigrants to as well as America avidly seeking immigration from those shores .Brian, if you can't read Ayn Rand, at least try a dictionary and a good text on grammar and style. You embarrass the English language.
How do you think Australia was filled up there was always somewhere to go for Europeans .Australia first filled up with English prisoners of the Crown. It was a penal colony. It's funny how that matter of ancestry is never brought up by Aussies. Your family tree might be interesting reading, Brian.

Socialism in Europe came from the condition that plagued Europe after WW2.

What was that condition? NO ECONOMY LEFT.

So what was done about it? The US rebuilt their economies (Marshall Plan was just a pittence compared to what we really did).


Finland/ socialism/ No Marshall plan applicable/

Brian, if you can't read Ayn Rand,
I keep telling you Marv you ought to read a Porn magazine instead .

at least try a dictionary and a good text on grammar and style. You embarrass the English language. Gee thanks Marv , just when I thought my problems were forgetting to dot the i's and cross the , t's you point this out your a real gem Marv ;)

Australia first filled up with English prisoners of the Crown. It was a penal colony. It's funny how that matter of ancestry is never brought up by Aussies. Your family tree might be interesting reading, Brian.
How did you find out about this ? Oh my God how will I live this down ! Now that you Know , others will become aware of my stain , how could I ever face Sciforums again ....................

The Europeans had empires to send their immigrants to as well as America avidly seeking immigration from those shores .

You mean like east Africa or Egypt?

What you fail to realize is that the decent colonies only wanted protestant brits in their countries. Most socialism developed on the mainland. Specifically in Germany which didn't have any decent colonies.

A Belgian was much better off at home than in the Congo where most immigrants died of fever...

Dilbert thats a very nice cold war xenophobic image you have there.

Some elements of big government, socialism and control by the rich and powerful may have helped humans over hard times in the past. But these quickly become oppressive and counter-productice. The USA and much of the World now needs to move toward Libertarian = liberty = freedom = lots less government, before big government, socialism and/or the obscenely rich distroy modern civilization. Collapse is close at hand in my opinion. Neil

No Americas way of dealing with the poor was and always been the imprisoning of Blacks bound up in ghettoe fortresses or the segregated South or Native Americans locked on reservations . Neither could go anywhere without encountering legal resistance and oppression .
The past 60 years, The USA has not imprissoned blacks in getto fortesses and Native Americans have been free to leave the reservations. Few nations have been less inclined to oppress minorities the past 60 years than the USA. I'm 73 years old, so I'm not sure what happened more than 60 years ago nor in Southern USA more than 52 years ago. Reverse discrimination has become common in recent decades, which is making The USA average work force less competent. Neil

Some elements of big government, socialism and control by the rich and powerful may have helped humans over hard times in the past. But these quickly become oppressive and counter-productice. The USA and much of the World now needs to move toward Libertarian = liberty = freedom = lots less government, before big government, socialism and/or the obscenely rich distroy modern civilization. Collapse is close at hand in my opinion. Neil
How do you propose to control the power of the obscenely rich except through government? George Orwell pointed out- in a review of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom- that the alternative to government control- which is or should be responsive to the people who elect governments- is allowing control to fall to rich people and companies which have no interest in or reason to react to anything except their own convenience and aggrandisement. Unfortunately in the UK and USA now we seem to have governments whioch think the whole function of a government is to serve the interests of the rich and powerful anyway, so we suffer from the worst of both options.