3 ms·

What are you asking, exactly? It's pretty well accepted that parts of Europe are socialist. France, while it has been moving away from socialism in some ways, w

What are you asking, exactly? It's pretty well accepted that parts of Europe are socialist. France, while it has been moving away from socialism in some ways, was pretty socialist at the time of this story.

gerikson 10y ago
How do you define "socialism" in this case? State-owned companies? Usual in much of Europe, but hardly sufficient for "socialism"? Distributive taxation? Preferable treatment of unions in labor disputes? You need to define your terms otherwise it just becomes a word.
- harperlee 10y ago
  Both the strong rule of law on ownership rights and the sofistication of finance operations that enable these arrangements seem to me more related to a highly capitalistic society where two parties can arrange such contracts, than a socialist or communist one where property is a more "flexible" concept that can be overriden when it is deemed adequate by the government - and that discourage people with money into entering such agreements.
- mathgeek 10y ago
  There's no need to be pedantic about definitions. France had a socialist government as recently as 2014: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/frances-socialist-government-folds-over-economic-d/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/frances-soci... There are other countries in Europe that have or have had (and moved on from) socialist governments in recent history.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    Just because the party in power calls itself "socialists" doesn't make them socialists. Their current plans to gut worker's rights are antithetical to socialism.
    - malka 10y ago
      France is not socialist since 1983.
  - gerikson 10y ago
    I do think it's worth being pedantic when using loaded words like "socialism".
    - mathgeek 10y ago
      It just seems like a bit of a misdirect when the response to "what are you asking" goes towards trying to define socialism instead of answering the question. It's akin to saying "I don't agree that this thing is green" and when asked why you don't agree, the response is "define green" when talking about a teal object.

gerikson 10y ago

How do you define "socialism" in this case? State-owned companies? Usual in much of Europe, but hardly sufficient for "socialism"? Distributive taxation? Preferable treatment of unions in labor disputes? You need to define your terms otherwise it just becomes a word.

harperlee 10y ago
Both the strong rule of law on ownership rights and the sofistication of finance operations that enable these arrangements seem to me more related to a highly capitalistic society where two parties can arrange such contracts, than a socialist or communist one where property is a more "flexible" concept that can be overriden when it is deemed adequate by the government - and that discourage people with money into entering such agreements.
mathgeek 10y ago
There's no need to be pedantic about definitions. France had a socialist government as recently as 2014: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/frances-socialist-government-folds-over-economic-d/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/frances-soci... There are other countries in Europe that have or have had (and moved on from) socialist governments in recent history.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  Just because the party in power calls itself "socialists" doesn't make them socialists. Their current plans to gut worker's rights are antithetical to socialism.
  - malka 10y ago
    France is not socialist since 1983.
- gerikson 10y ago
  I do think it's worth being pedantic when using loaded words like "socialism".
  - mathgeek 10y ago
    It just seems like a bit of a misdirect when the response to "what are you asking" goes towards trying to define socialism instead of answering the question. It's akin to saying "I don't agree that this thing is green" and when asked why you don't agree, the response is "define green" when talking about a teal object.