5 Myths About Sick Old Europe

Personally, I don't regard 'socialist' as a curse word, although it is factually inaccurate with reference to the EU (overgeneralisation). The Oxford Dictionary '(7th edition) defines socialism as: 'a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries'. In most European countries, the government does in fact not 'own and control the main industries'.

So the debate is really about whether the European system is more social (not socialist) than the U.S. American one, a question which I think is difficult to answer, since the EU consists of many diverse countries.
(And yes, the article cited here does contain a lack of references -although it includes several figures- but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is factually inaccurate. Neither can we say that it is 'true', though, since no one can ever capture all the potential perspectives on a given topic.)

I'm going to pass any attempt to defend the European economy in general, since, to be honest, I don't know enough about recent statistics to comment on it, although I would ask you to bear in mind the emergence of Ireland as a strong economic power after they joined the EU.

Everyone will differ on this topic. From my point of view, which is admittedly the point of view of a college student with a middle class background, who has made very negative experiences with the German medical system, a state with benefits that has troubles to maintain this standard and is in debt, is still preferrable to a state with fewer benefits.

It is true that Germany, for instance, has a more extensive system of support for the unemployed than the U.S. system does (Payne 2005; Marsh et al. 2006). At the same time, this system is widely contested and is getting reformed all the time due to substantial errors. How much money do people need to live an 'acceptable' life? What is considered 'acceptable' and who defines it? Does a group of politicians, who are in no financial troubles themselves, really have the right to tell another person how much money they can spend on such basic things as heating? And who is supposed to finance the benefits? These are all big issues, which shouldn't be underestimated.

So yes, there are several 'welfare states' in the EU, which I, personally, think is a great thing, but you would be turning your eyes away from reality if you idealise that. There are problems which go with it as well.

We need to be vigilant against jumping to conclusions from a few numbers and figures. These are always highly dependent on the method used to assess a given topic, and the people using them, the counting systems, etc. (Marsh 2006). For example, unemployment rates in Germany have sunk to 8.7% (October 2007) since the change of government in Germany (just as a comparison: they were at 10.5% in September 2005). This is of course a positive thing, but at the same time, there has been a change in the employment offered, with a decrease in employee protection and an increase in so-called '1-Euro-jobs', which only lower the numbers of unemployment by getting people a job for a few weeks at most with extremely low pay. At the same time, there has been a change in the definition of who can apply for unemployment money from the government. So we can't simply say 'there are fewer unemployed people out there', since this may not be true, and certainly depends on our own definition of the word 'unemployed'.

Another example would be the medical system. While I think it is good that there is a general state insurance system in Germany, so everyone is entitled to medical services, the increasing differences between benefits provided for people with private insurance and people with government insurance also make it a very unfair system, a system which reinforces social stratification. Therefore, it may seem easy to prefer the British system with the NHS (National Health Service) for everyone, which is paid for through taxes and government-funded. On the other hand, this also has its downsides: People have to wait for a long time to get surgery, there is an increasing amount of dentists who go private and don't accept NHS patients anymore (Metro 2007), etc.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think things are that simple. It depends on your point of view which system seems preferable. To me, it is clearly a more social economy, although I think it is a highly idealised perspective to say that there isn't as much social injustice in Europe - there is. Only its manifestations are different.

Sources: Hornby, A.S. (2004) Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary,
7th edition
Marsh, I. et al. (2006) Sociology: Making Sense of Society , 3rd edition
Payne (2005) Social Divisions
Deutsches Arbeitsamt (German Employment Agency): http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/ser...at/aktuell.pdf
Metro, October 2007 (sorry, forgot the exact date)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Jeffro

In Europe:

*You can walk down the street with a beer in your hand and a cop won't give you shit about it or tell you to pour it out.

*You aren't thrown in the slammer for having a tiny bit of Cannabis on you.

*Whore houses are readily available

*They aren't as pretentious about alcohol consumption

*Nudity isn't considering disgusting and it is celebrated tastefully through art.

*People don't shove patriotism down your throat.

*Maternity leave is decent, while in America it is the worst in the Western world.

*Public Transportation is readily available

I heard it rains chocolate in Europe as well...

No, sorry, but as right as some of these things may be for some of the countries, your statement is an overgeneralisation. Cannabis and prostitution laws, for example, vary from country to country, and although it is legal to drink alcohol in public, you may still face prejudiced interrogations from the police if you do so.

You are right about maternity leave, though, which was even admitted by a 2004 edition of Newsweek (I forgot which one it was, though, sorry).

As for patriotism - I wouldn't say it is less existent in Europe, it is just expressed in a different way for historical reasons.

I don't know too much about the legality of nudity in Europe (except that it's technically illegal to walk around naked in public in Germany). I can only say that from my experience of living in Germany, Oregon and Scotland, Germany was the most liberal about sexuality, although Scotland is also fairly liberal in terms of artistic expression and the legal age of consent. There are certain ideological differences between the U.S. and several European countries, but there are also differences within these countries, with more conservative and liberal people, like everywhere.

Most amazing jew boots

I understand your argument, and being from Europe, I'm inclined to agree with you. And still, something makes me sceptical. I used to think that there was actually a quantitative difference in patriotism in the U.S. compared to Europe, but in reality, I think this difference is mainly qualitative.

Americans tend to be very expressive about their sense of belonging, and like to celebrate this. Germans (I don't know about Europeans in general) are the other extreme in this area for obvious historical reasons, and have a sort of vigilance against pathos, emotional rhetoric, displays of the flag and things like that. This, I think, is part of the reason why there are certain disagreements between Germans and Americans. Their attitudes vary so much, and each for valid reasons.

Does this make them less patriotic? I'm not sure. I tend to think of patriotism as something negative as well, and questioning this, it becomes clear where it comes from: Patriotism, in Germany, is regarded as something negative, the existence of which needs to be denied. That doesn't mean, however, that it doesn't exist, but that it is expressed negatively. I've noticed on the media, for example, especially on TV and in the major newspapers (e.g. Die Zeit), that they tend to put Germany down, but then proceed to put other countries (especially the U.S.) down more, in a sort of "we're bad, but you're even worse!" tone. Sometimes, I find that annoying as well, although I suppose I am more used to it than I am to the American form of patriotism, which has desensitized me.

Most amazing jew boots

They don't force them to serve in the armed services, but some European countries (like Germany) do make people choose EITHER the armed service, OR social work for a few months. Most people go for social work, such as working at a nursing home, and to be honest, I don't really see what's wrong with that, as it gives you so much life experience.

The problem with it in Germany is that the state only drafts the men (although women can choose to work for the armed forces), which is sexist and simply unfair, because it means that girls can start work/uni earlier after school than those boys who are determined to be fit for either social service or armed service.

Also, if they do choose to join the army for a few months, what they actually get is nothing but training and sports. They are not actually the people who are being sent to fight, that's the so-called "Berufssoldaten", who have joined the army voluntarily and completed a longer training. So that does defy the whole purpose of it, and basically, everyone expects it to be abolished within the next few years.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?