3 ms·

Well, I am French, so really my comments were factual and a history lesson, really... "Socialism" has a precise meaning, as described several times in my previo

Well, I am French, so really my comments were factual and a history lesson, really... "Socialism" has a precise meaning, as described several times in my previous comments. Socialism isn't social democracy. Socialism is a bad word in the EU for most people in Western Europe who have some perspective and understanding of what it means (again which is usually not the same as the parties that have "socialist" in their names advocate), and certainly for the people in Eastern Europe who actually experienced it firsthand. Perhaps there is a generational issue as well. When I grew up there were socialist countries in half of Europe and the French Communist Party was good friend with them and the big guys in Moscow (You know, the capital of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Now, anyone under 35 was born after socialism disappeared from Europe so perhaps lack understanding, including that it is not a fairytale but an utter failure (hence shift away from it).

palata 2y ago
Right. Then it feels like we only disagree on the surface :-). You seem to say "Socialism as it used to be has disappeared" and I say "Socialism has evolved". My original reaction towards US people is that I really feel like whatever is left on Barack Obama sounds authoritarian to them. You say "public transport should be owned by the state" and they say "you deserve to go to jail, you socialist" (I exaggerate obviously, just to make my point). They tend to forget that there is a world of opinions to the left of Obama (which, again, is on the right wing in my book), and that those opinions are still compatible with democracy.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Well, no. "Socialism has evolved" is nonsensical. Socialism has a definition so either that's what you want or that's not what you want... Socialism has disappeared from government and from what most "socialist parties" actually seek, which is in fact social democracy. There are still parties that seek socialism, or groups within parties that overall do not.
  - palata 2y ago
    > Socialism has a definition so either that's what you want or that's not what you want So when you go to a movie theater, it's not a movie theater because by definition it is an analog movie being projected in black and white without sound? How could this new digital thing with colors and sound ever be compared to the original movie theater? That's nonsensical. Movie theaters have disappeared decades ago, right? I know that 99.9% of the people still use the word "movie theater" for the new thing that exists everywhere, but surely they are wrong. Because that's not how language works, is it? Language is about the definition I chose to keep from decades ago, not about the definition that is commonly understood by the people who use the word. That's how I understand what your understanding of "the definition of a word". In my view, someone calling an iPhone "a phone" is not wrong, even though the iPhone is pretty far from what used to be called a phone.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      No, what you're saying is that a circle has "evolved" into a square but it's it's fine to still call it a circle. Of course it isn't. Again, it seems obvious you do not understand what socialism vs capitalism means, as explained before and for the reasons explained before, as your latest comment is not apt at all and besides the point. I would nicely suggest you have a good read at the Wikipedia pages in English, which look less manipulated that the ones in French (more scrutiny?), or even Marxist stuff if you are up to. Enjoy!
      - palata 2y ago
        > Again, it seems obvious you do not understand what socialism vs capitalism means Turns out I studied Marx ;-). > No, what you're saying is that a circle has "evolved" into a square but it's it's fine to still call it a circle. Of course it isn't. My turn, now: it seems obvious that you do not understand how languages work.
        mytailorisrich 2y ago
        This is not language this is an economical and political theory... > Turns out I studied Marx Pull the other one!

palata 2y ago

Right. Then it feels like we only disagree on the surface :-). You seem to say "Socialism as it used to be has disappeared" and I say "Socialism has evolved". My original reaction towards US people is that I really feel like whatever is left on Barack Obama sounds authoritarian to them. You say "public transport should be owned by the state" and they say "you deserve to go to jail, you socialist" (I exaggerate obviously, just to make my point). They tend to forget that there is a world of opinions to the left of Obama (which, again, is on the right wing in my book), and that those opinions are still compatible with democracy.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
Well, no. "Socialism has evolved" is nonsensical. Socialism has a definition so either that's what you want or that's not what you want... Socialism has disappeared from government and from what most "socialist parties" actually seek, which is in fact social democracy. There are still parties that seek socialism, or groups within parties that overall do not.
- palata 2y ago
  > Socialism has a definition so either that's what you want or that's not what you want So when you go to a movie theater, it's not a movie theater because by definition it is an analog movie being projected in black and white without sound? How could this new digital thing with colors and sound ever be compared to the original movie theater? That's nonsensical. Movie theaters have disappeared decades ago, right? I know that 99.9% of the people still use the word "movie theater" for the new thing that exists everywhere, but surely they are wrong. Because that's not how language works, is it? Language is about the definition I chose to keep from decades ago, not about the definition that is commonly understood by the people who use the word. That's how I understand what your understanding of "the definition of a word". In my view, someone calling an iPhone "a phone" is not wrong, even though the iPhone is pretty far from what used to be called a phone.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    No, what you're saying is that a circle has "evolved" into a square but it's it's fine to still call it a circle. Of course it isn't. Again, it seems obvious you do not understand what socialism vs capitalism means, as explained before and for the reasons explained before, as your latest comment is not apt at all and besides the point. I would nicely suggest you have a good read at the Wikipedia pages in English, which look less manipulated that the ones in French (more scrutiny?), or even Marxist stuff if you are up to. Enjoy!
    - palata 2y ago
      > Again, it seems obvious you do not understand what socialism vs capitalism means Turns out I studied Marx ;-). > No, what you're saying is that a circle has "evolved" into a square but it's it's fine to still call it a circle. Of course it isn't. My turn, now: it seems obvious that you do not understand how languages work.
      - mytailorisrich 2y ago
        This is not language this is an economical and political theory... > Turns out I studied Marx Pull the other one!