Politics So...Europe then?

[Bodhi]

Which, unless those workers want to buy shares, is illegal under EU law. Workers' cooperatives are allowed*, but state (which in practical terms is control by the workers, or the nearest you can get at scale) ownership isn't, unless its deemed a strategic industry, like certain defence companies, and even then total state ownership is discouraged. You also don't know what "central command government" means; the EU is nothing like the Soviet Union in that regard. Not even close.

The difference between the EU and US is primarily increased state regulation (which is a necessary evil with 27 different legal and political systems to contend with), versus increased legal costs in the US.

(*which ironically weren't allowed in the Soviet Union unless the state forced you into one).

Strange how a few people devoted a large amount of time of their lives to bringing down the USSR looked on in horror whilst we set up pretty much exactly the same thing in Europe. That Mikail bloke with the birthmark was the most vocal one, but there were plenty of others. Stuff like over-ruling referendums (I'm still in shock we haven't been told by Brussels to go vote again), replacing democratically led governments, getting rid of nations etc etc.

 

[Bodhi]

The EU is neither socialist, nor capitalist.

It attempts to cherry pick the best parts of each, equality through capitalism, the rush for cheap labour...for example...which is never going to work, whichever way you look at it.

All you get is far richer rich people and ever so slightly less piss poor, poor people.

Only because they need a bit of capitalism to pay for all the socialist stuff

 

[Scouse]

The EU is neither socialist, nor capitalist.

It is capitalist. End of. It's constitution forbids socialism. We live in a capitalist economic system.

I actually do get why it's so difficult a concept for some people to grasp - we do not teach our children the different systems, how they're supposed to work etc. The reason being is that some kids would start fighting for the opposite - which is socially destabilising.

Instead we demonise any other system and make the conceptual realisation of basic systemic change that much harder.

It ain't gonna change. The holders of capital have too much to lose...

 

[Bodhi]

It is capitalist. End of. It's constitution forbids socialism. We live in a capitalist economic system.

I actually do get why it's so difficult a concept for some people to grasp - we do not teach our children the different systems, how they're supposed to work etc. The reason being is that some kids would start fighting for the opposite - which is socially destabilising.

Instead we demonise any other system and make the conceptual realisation of basic systemic change that much harder.

It ain't gonna change. The holders of capital have too much to lose...

It's quite difficult to grasp as you are talking mostly arse - communism specifically is forbidden by the EU, socialism generally is not. It would be quite tough to outlaw a political system that most of its member subscribe to, don't you think?

 

[DaGaffer]

Strange how a few people devoted a large amount of time of their lives to bringing down the USSR looked on in horror whilst we set up pretty much exactly the same thing in Europe. That Mikail bloke with the birthmark was the most vocal one, but there were plenty of others. Stuff like over-ruling referendums (I'm still in shock we haven't been told by Brussels to go vote again), replacing democratically led governments, getting rid of nations etc etc.

The EU has never once over-ruled a referendum. The governments of individual states have done that, and in both cases the referenda were changed to address the reason for rejection (e.g. in the Irish Lisbon rejection, they got specific carve outs to deal with the two reasons for rejection) . What democratically led government has the EU replaced? What nation has the EU "got rid of"? What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Scouse]

socialism generally is not

By your own provided definition - method of production held by the workers, not in private hands - socialism is outlawed.

Why, when you provided the link that proves you wrong, the very definition of which the EU makes illegal, can you not concede you're talking out of your arse?

You, @Bodhi, are not talking about socialism. But don't want to admit that you don't actually know what you're on about.

What the fuck are you talking about?

He's flaffing. It's like talking about why there's no god with a religious zealot.

He believes he's right and no amount of evidence - even if he provides it himself - will disabuse him of his foolishness.

 

[Bodhi]

By your own provided definition - method of production held by the workers, not in private hands - socialism is outlawed.

Why, when you provided the link that proves you wrong, the very definition of which the EU makes illegal, can you not concede you're talking out of your arse?

You, @Bodhi, are not talking about socialism. But don't want to admit that you don't actually know what you're on about.

Now now Swampy, stick to playing the ball, eh old bean?

I will ask again - why would the EU outlaw socialism as part of it's constitution, when a large propertion of it's member states practice that very same thing?

And, if it's so illegal and against ze rules, how do set ups like The Co-Op, John Lewis and Waitrose exist? In fact, seeing as we are getting just that pedantic how do companies get round this when granting stock to employees - what is that if not the means of production owned by the workers?

Or perhaps, the only thing that is expressly forbidden is state ownership of the means of production. Which is something else entirely.

 

[Raven]

The EU has never once over-ruled a referendum. The governments of individual states have done that, and in both cases the referenda were changed to address the reason for rejection (e.g. in the Irish Lisbon rejection, they got specific carve outs to deal with the two reasons for rejection) . What democratically led government has the EU replaced? What nation has the EU "got rid of"? What the fuck are you talking about?

Greece? It has been led down the payday loan route enough for it to be essentially owned by the EU. Sure, on paper it's a nation state...but it is no longer, not really.

 

[DaGaffer]

It's quite difficult to grasp as you are talking mostly arse - communism specifically is forbidden by the EU, socialism generally is not. It would be quite tough to outlaw a political system that most of its member subscribe to, don't you think?

Sigh. Communism isn't specifically forbidden by the EU. I believe communist symbols are forbidden in some EU countries (and that may not be true anymore, I know it was a thing in Hungary and Poland for a while but that's more in the vein of the Nazi symbols ban in Germany). There are still communist parties knocking around the EU, like these lads, but, if they miraculously got into power, in order to take state control of the means of production (which is both a socialist and communist objective, since in both cases the state is supposed to be the organ of control of production in service of the workers) they would have to leave the EU because their policies would be inimical to EU membership, (just like UKIP), and would require some policies which would be illegal under EU law. Ironically though the reason for banning state ownership is not "anti-socialist" (or anti-communist for that matter), but because it can be used to create unfair competition in the market (state subsidies of car companies for example), which is hardly a socialist kind of thing to do...

 

[Job]

From spending the week speaking to our European colleagues, they only thing I see sowing disunity in Europe is the EU itself - those who like the socilaist supra-national project, and those who don't. Any bad feeling I got towards us Brits was solely because we got a vote on things - they didn't.

The most popular outcome I picked up on was that if the EU were to fail and be replaced by some sort of European Alliance, a Community almost, where we focused on co-operation and trade, and less of the United States of Europe idea, which apart from a few bureaucrats based in Belgium, no one seems to really want. Sounds an awesome idea - you have to ask why it hasn't already been tried....

Because that's all it was supposed to be, but power corrupts.
If we just had this, we could...
It is a lesson in mission creep, probably go down in history of a classic example of centralising power by little tiny increments until you are to woven in to leave.

 

[DaGaffer]

Greece? It has been led down the payday loan route enough for it to be essentially owned by the EU. Sure, on paper it's a nation state...but it is no longer, not really.

A rather socialist viewpoint of things wouldn't you say? Rather than the very capitalist - "your property is at risk if you can't keep up with the payments". But no, even in Greece the EU hasn't replaced a government or disappeared a nation.

 

[Bodhi]

Greece? It has been led down the payday loan route enough for it to be essentially owned by the EU. Sure, on paper it's a nation state...but it is no longer, not really.

Juncker has long been against the idea of the nation state, I am quite shocked Greece is the only one they've managed to cripple so far.

 

[Raven]

A rather socialist viewpoint of things wouldn't you say? Rather than the very capitalist - "your property is at risk if you can't keep up with the payments". But no, even in Greece the EU hasn't replaced a government or disappeared a nation.

Well, they kind of have. "You will do as we say or we will cut off your account card"

While on the one hand they are coming to the rescue with "bailouts" on the other "if you don't pay us and do what we say, we chop you up and sell you"

There is no way on earth the deal with Greece will work in the longterm, the fairest and most painless thing to have done would have been let it sink...but then the EU wouldn't have acquired their first chuck of land.

 

[Scouse]

in order to take state control of the means of production (which is both a socialist and communist objective, since in both cases the state is supposed to be the organ of control of production in service of the workers) they would have to leave the EU because their policies would be inimical to EU membership, (just like UKIP), and would require some policies which would be illegal under EU law.

Does it make it any clearer if @DaGaffer says it (again) @Bodhi?

I mean, your own wikipedia link said it, and you ignored that...

 

[Job]

rather heavy wording, but a good insight into the EU's beginning.
Pretty well was a federal dream from the start
The EU is not just a trading bloc and was never meant to be a democracy - Daily Globe

 

[Scouse]

What I do find spectacularly amusing is that @Raven and @Bodhi are kinda on the same page on Greece - but they can't see that is a failing of a capitalist system and attribute it, magically, to socialism.

Must be because they both fail at education. Hard.

 

[Scouse]

Pretty well was a federal dream from the start

Nobody is arguing about that @Job. This is an argument over capitalism and socialism.

Personally, I think a federal europe is a great idea. But only if it's a much more democratically accountable one.

 

[DaGaffer]

rather heavy wording, but a good insight into the EU's beginning.
Pretty well was a federal dream from the start
The EU is not just a trading bloc and was never meant to be a democracy - Daily Globe

Yes. And this wasn't kept secret from Britain when we joined in the first place. "Ever closer union" has been a thing since the start.

 

[Bodhi]

Sigh. Communism isn't specifically forbidden by the EU. I believe communist symbols are forbidden in some EU countries (and that may not be true anymore, I know it was a thing in Hungary and Poland for a while but that's more in the vein of the Nazi symbols ban in Germany). There are still communist parties knocking around the EU, like these lads, but, if they miraculously got into power, in order to take state control of the means of production (which is both a socialist and communist objective, since in both cases the state is supposed to be the organ of control of production in service of the workers) they would have to leave the EU because their policies would be inimical to EU membership, (just like UKIP), and would require some policies which would be illegal under EU law. Ironically though the reason for banning state ownership is not "anti-socialist" (or anti-communist for that matter), but because it can be used to create unfair competition in the market (state subsidies of car companies for example), which is hardly a socialist kind of thing to do...

So, if the existence of Communist parties in various forms is proof that it isn't communism that's forbidden by the EU's constitution, surely it must follow that Socialism isn't forbidden by the EU constitution as Socialist parties still exist? Never mind socialist parties, socialist governments still exist. Seems a slight logic fail, but then the EU have never been great on logic, so wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Scouse]

So, if the existence of Communist parties in various forms is proof that it isn't communism that's forbidden by the EU's constitution, surely it must follow that Socialism isn't forbidden by the EU constitution as Socialist parties still exist? Never mind socialist parties, socialist governments still exist. Seems a slight logic fail, but then the EU have never been great on logic, so wouldn't surprise me.

*Sigh*

The EU doesn't stop political parties existing. However, if those parties manage to form governments and those governments want to enact socialist economic policies - convert their countries from the EU's capitalist system, bring the means of production under social control - then they have to leave the EU first.

Hence why Jeremy Corbyn is actually for us leaving the EU - because he can't enact socialist policies until after Brexit.


We've now come full circle. That subject was covered in my very first post. It's not hard to understand. Why are you struggling?

 

[Bodhi]

*Sigh*

The EU doesn't stop political parties existing. However, if those parties manage to form governments and those governments want to enact socialist economic policies - convert their countries from the EU's capitalist system, bring the means of production under social control - then they have to leave the EU first.

Hence why Jeremy Corbyn is actually for us leaving the EU - because he can't enact socialist policies until after Brexit.


We've now come full circle. That subject was covered in my very first post. It's not hard to understand. Why are you struggling?

So when are France leaving the EU then? Or are you suggesting France is a capitalist economy?

As if you are I'd suggest you haven't spent much time out there....

 

[Raven]

So when are France leaving the EU then? Or are you suggesting France is a capitalist economy?

As if you are I'd suggest you haven't spent much time out there....

6 months to a year

 

[Raven]

Yes. And this wasn't kept secret from Britain when we joined in the first place. "Ever closer union" has been a thing since the start.

Ever closer union does not equal a federal state. Besides which, a decent amount of people that voted for it in 75 are dead now anyway and even then it was anything but a landslide.

Not that I don't want a federal state, it would make so many things better. But the EU (as in the unelected, corrupt cunts at the top) vision is not what anyone really wants.

 

[DaGaffer]

So, if the existence of Communist parties in various forms is proof that it isn't communism that's forbidden by the EU's constitution, surely it must follow that Socialism isn't forbidden by the EU constitution as Socialist parties still exist? Never mind socialist parties, socialist governments still exist. Seems a slight logic fail, but then the EU have never been great on logic, so wouldn't surprise me.

...and we're back where we started. They're social democrat governments, not socialist. It even fucking says that in the wiki you linked.

 

[DaGaffer]

Ever closer union does not equal a federal state. Besides which, a decent amount of people that voted for it in 75 are dead now anyway and even then it was anything but a landslide.

Not that I don't want a federal state, it would make so many things better. But the EU (as in the unelected, corrupt cunts at the top) vision is not what anyone really wants.

"ever closer" and "union". Irrespective of whether it means a federal state or not (hell, it could mean a unitary state), it's stating a direction (ever closer) and intent (union), which makes it pretty fucking clear that it doesn't start and end with a trading block.

NB. I note that the fuckers who voted us in in 75 are largely the xenophobic old farts who voted us out in 17, like the Golden Generation, only for cunts.

 

[Ormorof]

Where in the EU is a socialist party in control of a government?

 

[Raven]

France?

Cazeneuve Government - Wikipedia

They love a socialist dead end in France.

 

[Bodhi]

...and we're back where we started. They're social democrat governments, not socialist. It even fucking says that in the wiki you linked.

You mean the wiki I linked that states Social Democracy is considered a form of socialism? Hence it being a section on the Wiki page for....socialism.

Glad we agree.

 

[Bodhi]

It's only people like Scouse that lack the ability to see nuance and shades of grey.

Must admit watching him go round and round in circles all day over a technicality did give me some insight into why he loves the EU so much. Must want a job there.

 

[Raven]

I deleted it but point stands

It's how he "wins" - pick up on a misplaced comma, go round and round about that, change the question, go round and round about that. It can go on for page after page if you let it.