3 ms·

I somewhat agree, but any connection between Communism and Socialism needs to similarly find its way to that trash heap. Communism's failing is its seemingly in

I somewhat agree, but any connection between Communism and Socialism needs to similarly find its way to that trash heap. Communism's failing is its seemingly inescapable combination with totalitarianism and despotism, which was a significant problem with Nazism as well. It's not the principle that society is responsible for caring for and providing for it's citizens. For too long, we've resisted more socialist policies because those with a vested interest in the status quo were able to paint them as communist. But Socialism has been successful enough in European countries at this point to be fully differentiated from Communism despite sharing that single principle. In The United States, in particular, there is still a legacy of the 'red scare' that's used to push back against socialist policies that would greatly improve this country and that needs to end too.

StavrosK 9y ago
Exactly, and as a European I'd like to caution that this article plays into the "oooh communism isn't so great now is it" mentality that is prevalent in the US due to the cold war. Let's separate the principles of a system of government with how it's been implemented, there's still a good discussion to be had on individualism vs society and the tradeoffs when forming governmental structures.
jules 9y ago
That is not what socialism used to mean. European countries are capitalist with a welfare state. This was first set up in Germany by Bismarck, and the socialists were opposed to it. Socialism used to mean that the means of production were in the hands of the government, and by that standard Europe is certainly not socialist. The capital is privately owned and the decisions about how to use that capital are made by those owners. The wealth that is redistributed in Europe is created by capitalism. Europe does not differ significantly from the US in this regard; the government expenditure as a percentage of GDP in "socialist" Europe is not very different than "capitalist" United States. The US spends 42% whereas France and Sweden (usually considered the two most socialist countries in Europe) it is 56% and 51%, respectively. In Germany it's 45% and in Switzerland 35%.
- huac 9y ago
  What is the percentage of non-defense GDP spending? I'd guess that the delta is larger.
  - jules 9y ago
    The US spends 3.3% of GDP on military whereas France spends 2.3%, so while excluding this makes the delta larger, it won't make a significant dent.
    - curun1r 9y ago
      IIRC, that 3.3% is just for the 5 branches of the military and doesn't include intelligence spending (~$80b/yr) or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which are around $2.4 trillion dollars thus far over ~14 years. A more honest number is probably above 4%.
    - huac 9y ago
      Fair, though France's military spending is the highest in Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...). My understanding is that US spending is relatively 'inefficient' compared to European countries, esp for healthcare. We spend more for comparatively worse outcomes (this is definitely true when compared to UK NHS, probably for France too).

StavrosK 9y ago

Exactly, and as a European I'd like to caution that this article plays into the "oooh communism isn't so great now is it" mentality that is prevalent in the US due to the cold war. Let's separate the principles of a system of government with how it's been implemented, there's still a good discussion to be had on individualism vs society and the tradeoffs when forming governmental structures.

jules 9y ago

That is not what socialism used to mean. European countries are capitalist with a welfare state. This was first set up in Germany by Bismarck, and the socialists were opposed to it. Socialism used to mean that the means of production were in the hands of the government, and by that standard Europe is certainly not socialist. The capital is privately owned and the decisions about how to use that capital are made by those owners. The wealth that is redistributed in Europe is created by capitalism. Europe does not differ significantly from the US in this regard; the government expenditure as a percentage of GDP in "socialist" Europe is not very different than "capitalist" United States. The US spends 42% whereas France and Sweden (usually considered the two most socialist countries in Europe) it is 56% and 51%, respectively. In Germany it's 45% and in Switzerland 35%.

huac 9y ago
What is the percentage of non-defense GDP spending? I'd guess that the delta is larger.
- jules 9y ago
  The US spends 3.3% of GDP on military whereas France spends 2.3%, so while excluding this makes the delta larger, it won't make a significant dent.
  - curun1r 9y ago
    IIRC, that 3.3% is just for the 5 branches of the military and doesn't include intelligence spending (~$80b/yr) or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which are around $2.4 trillion dollars thus far over ~14 years. A more honest number is probably above 4%.
  - huac 9y ago
    Fair, though France's military spending is the highest in Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...). My understanding is that US spending is relatively 'inefficient' compared to European countries, esp for healthcare. We spend more for comparatively worse outcomes (this is definitely true when compared to UK NHS, probably for France too).