4 ms·

You have to understand that the American definition for socialism completely different than Europeans. Those words evoke memories of communism and Cold War rhet

You have to understand that the American definition for socialism completely different than Europeans. Those words evoke memories of communism and Cold War rhetoric.

umanwizard 5y ago
On the other hand, the European definition seems to be “social democracy” at most. Marx would have thought the name of today’s French “Socialist” Party was ridiculous.
- mrcode007 5y ago
  The socialism is all about nationalized means of production and lack of private enterprise. Everything is revolving around eliminating owners of capital as a social class. The often repeated American "socialism" whenever "free education" or "free healthcare" are mentioned has nothing to do with actual socialism and is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with social policies. Source: I come from a former soviet block country
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  Yes socialism and communism are two very different things in European politics. In fact in many countries socialist parties pre date communist parties.
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    I don't think you even have to go as far as Europe. In Canada, at least until recently, Social/Socialism isn't as bad word as in USA I think. NDP is an openly "Social Democratic" party and while they are pretty much always third nationally, they do occasionally lead individual provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_Canada
  - umanwizard 5y ago
    Yes, but, at least in the example of the French socialist party, they have become much less radically leftist and more generically “left-leaning” — and further from the Communists — over time . Compare their mission statements from 1905 and 2008: 1905: Le Parti socialiste est un parti de classe qui a pour but de socialiser les moyens de production et d'échange, c'est-à-dire de transformer la société capitaliste en une société collectiviste ou communiste, et pour moyen l'organisation économique et politique du prolétariat. Par son but, par son idéal, par les moyens qu'il emploie, le parti socialiste, tout en poursuivant la réalisation des réformes immédiates revendiquées par la classe ouvrière, n'est pas un parti de réforme, mais un parti de lutte des classes et de révolution. 2008: Être socialiste, c'est ne pas se satisfaire du monde tel qu'il est, c'est vouloir changer la société. L'idée socialiste relève, à la fois, d'une révolte contre les injustices et du combat pour une vie meilleure. Le but de l'action socialiste est l'émancipation complète de la personne humaine. Translation: 1905: The Socialist Party is a class party whose goal is to socialize the means of production and trade; that is, to transform capitalist society into a collectivist or communist society, and whose means is the economic and political organization of the proletariat. By its goal, by its ideal, by the means it uses, the Socialist Party, while it seeks the realization of the immediate reforms demanded by the working class, is not a reform party, but a party of class struggle and revolution. 2008: To be Socialist is to be dissatisfied with the present state of the world, to want to change society. The Socialist idea simultaneously addresses a revolt against injustice, and a fight for a better life. The goal of Socialist action is the total emancipation of the human person. Source: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_socialiste_(France) https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_socialiste_(France)
- simonh 5y ago
  This has changed hugely in Europe over the last generation. Certainly here in the UK there is zero appetite for nationalised industry and strong centralised industrial policy. The last labour government under Blair and Brown avoided such talk as utter poison, and Corbyn, the last Labour leader to openly talk about such things may well have killed the Labour party stone dead. They've now got a very centrist leader, but the harm is beginning to look incurable. Socialism today in Europe mostly means Scandinavian style strong social policy combined with a very large private industrial sector. Even the Conservative party here in the UK is fully on board with this approach, it's just a matter of proportions. Conservative leaders ever since Maggie have bent over backwards to show support for the National Health Service for example. Now ok, whether that's at all genuine or not is a separate question, but the political reality is that switching to a system of private health care is inconceivable here even for the political right. It would be just as suicidal as talking about nationalisation was for the left. So the voting public have resoundingly rejected both hard left socialism and radical right market reform, in certain sectors. It's not a matter of ideological purity or even consistency, just a matter of which model has worked out for which type of industry or service.
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    Eh, the conservatives just took steps towards nationalising the railways and it was hugely popular among regular, working class people.
    - simonh 5y ago
      The privatisation of the railways was always a complete and utter fudge. Not that the nationalised system was any better, but privatisation hasn't been exactly a resounding success for market forces either.

You have to understand that the American definition for socialism completely different than Europeans. Those words evoke memories of communism and Cold War rhetoric.

umanwizard 5y ago

On the other hand, the European definition seems to be “social democracy” at most. Marx would have thought the name of today’s French “Socialist” Party was ridiculous.

mrcode007 5y ago
The socialism is all about nationalized means of production and lack of private enterprise. Everything is revolving around eliminating owners of capital as a social class. The often repeated American "socialism" whenever "free education" or "free healthcare" are mentioned has nothing to do with actual socialism and is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with social policies. Source: I come from a former soviet block country
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Yes socialism and communism are two very different things in European politics. In fact in many countries socialist parties pre date communist parties.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  I don't think you even have to go as far as Europe. In Canada, at least until recently, Social/Socialism isn't as bad word as in USA I think. NDP is an openly "Social Democratic" party and while they are pretty much always third nationally, they do occasionally lead individual provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_Canada
- umanwizard 5y ago
  Yes, but, at least in the example of the French socialist party, they have become much less radically leftist and more generically “left-leaning” — and further from the Communists — over time . Compare their mission statements from 1905 and 2008: 1905: Le Parti socialiste est un parti de classe qui a pour but de socialiser les moyens de production et d'échange, c'est-à-dire de transformer la société capitaliste en une société collectiviste ou communiste, et pour moyen l'organisation économique et politique du prolétariat. Par son but, par son idéal, par les moyens qu'il emploie, le parti socialiste, tout en poursuivant la réalisation des réformes immédiates revendiquées par la classe ouvrière, n'est pas un parti de réforme, mais un parti de lutte des classes et de révolution. 2008: Être socialiste, c'est ne pas se satisfaire du monde tel qu'il est, c'est vouloir changer la société. L'idée socialiste relève, à la fois, d'une révolte contre les injustices et du combat pour une vie meilleure. Le but de l'action socialiste est l'émancipation complète de la personne humaine. Translation: 1905: The Socialist Party is a class party whose goal is to socialize the means of production and trade; that is, to transform capitalist society into a collectivist or communist society, and whose means is the economic and political organization of the proletariat. By its goal, by its ideal, by the means it uses, the Socialist Party, while it seeks the realization of the immediate reforms demanded by the working class, is not a reform party, but a party of class struggle and revolution. 2008: To be Socialist is to be dissatisfied with the present state of the world, to want to change society. The Socialist idea simultaneously addresses a revolt against injustice, and a fight for a better life. The goal of Socialist action is the total emancipation of the human person. Source: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_socialiste_(France) https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_socialiste_(France)
simonh 5y ago
This has changed hugely in Europe over the last generation. Certainly here in the UK there is zero appetite for nationalised industry and strong centralised industrial policy. The last labour government under Blair and Brown avoided such talk as utter poison, and Corbyn, the last Labour leader to openly talk about such things may well have killed the Labour party stone dead. They've now got a very centrist leader, but the harm is beginning to look incurable. Socialism today in Europe mostly means Scandinavian style strong social policy combined with a very large private industrial sector. Even the Conservative party here in the UK is fully on board with this approach, it's just a matter of proportions. Conservative leaders ever since Maggie have bent over backwards to show support for the National Health Service for example. Now ok, whether that's at all genuine or not is a separate question, but the political reality is that switching to a system of private health care is inconceivable here even for the political right. It would be just as suicidal as talking about nationalisation was for the left. So the voting public have resoundingly rejected both hard left socialism and radical right market reform, in certain sectors. It's not a matter of ideological purity or even consistency, just a matter of which model has worked out for which type of industry or service.
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  Eh, the conservatives just took steps towards nationalising the railways and it was hugely popular among regular, working class people.
  - simonh 5y ago
    The privatisation of the railways was always a complete and utter fudge. Not that the nationalised system was any better, but privatisation hasn't been exactly a resounding success for market forces either.