This is an unfortunate saying, that further perpetuates misunderstanding of what socialism is.
This is an unfortunate saying, that further perpetuates misunderstanding of what socialism is.
Everyone who isn't pedantic understands what the title is saying. The current vernacular matters in words like democracy/republicanism/communism/socialism.
Sure the meanings of words can change, but what about actual socialism? Is is it supposed to adopt a new name?
Most people in Europe associate socialism with things like healthcare, paid vacations, &c.
Americans associate socialism with china, cuba, no freedom, gulags and famines...
Just the fact that Biden is called a "socialist" or part of the "radical left" (or even close to the left) by a non negligible portion of Americans tells you all you have to know. America/Biden's socialism is the equivalent of progressive conservatism in Europe
What should we call that? Totalitarian Capitalism?
"wiggle room" Exactly right.
I liken it to a control that you can turn to the left or the right. There are an infinite number of degrees in between.
My life experience seems to indicate that the control must be continuously tweaked, like a servo control, to keep a country working. Lock it one place and the system runs out of control.
Side bar hypothesis: Perhaps democracy works merely by chance in that it jerks the control back and forth never allowing a stationary position. (?)
It's typically referred to as "state capitalism"
https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/socialist-or-capitalist-what-i...
"Socialism" is all social security etc. So I actually agree with the parent comment.
So in US, "Communism"=="Socialism", in Western EU !=.
(the GDR didn't call itself a "communist country", because the party realized that the poor condition of the economy doesn't quite fit the utopian ideals of "communism", so they invented the term "real socialism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism) as one of multiple steps towards a glorious communist future, which would be realized "really soon now, just work a bit harder and one day we'll be rewarded with communism" - or something like that at least, of course nobody believed this bullshit, not even the diehard communists themselves).
Not really the country like that, but the parties Christian Social Union and Social Democratic Party, we would name it "socialistic". Anyone in that party would be a "socialist", but not a "communist". So if they would deliver the Chancellor, we would say the country is run by a socialist.
I didn't know about "real socialism". So glad you're all part of EU now :).
Depending on the definition you want to use. If you want to use "socialism" as the opposite of "capitalism" then of course no, Germany isn't a "socialist country".
The being said Germany is a fairly "social" country in my book, very similar to France. They very often put the emphasis on the group rather than the individual (taxes, education, public infrastructures, health care, work/life balance, &c.)
But again we're mostly talking semantics and local usage of words here, the underlying principles are very easy to tell apart (I doubt anyone could tell with a straight face that Germany and the US are running on the same principles for example.) now some people use the word "socialism" to describe that or part of it
In France 20th century socialists fought a lot for workers rights, abolishing the death penalty, depenalizing homosexuality, warranting liveable minimum wages, earlier retirement age, paid vacations, paid parental leaves, &c, many of the rights we take for granted nowadays are direct or indirect achievements of socialists, which is logical since Europe (mostly invented and) soaked in socialism for the last 150+ years. That being said, yes modern France or Germany "socialism" evolved from their early definition but I still believe they're indefinitely more socialist than the US.
I feel like many people get trapped in the socialism = communism, communism = never worked, hence communism = bad, hence socialism = bad, as if it was a binary thing. I guess we could argue about the exact meaning of "socialism" in 2020 but I doubt we can argue that "socialism" deeply marked a lot of European countries
What? No they don't, at least not in Germany. Here, "socialism" is primarily associated with the Soviet Union and the GDR (East Germany).
"healthcare, paid vacations", in contrast, is not associated with any particular political system, because it's understood to be the baseline, or taken for granted. At best, it's associated with the "Sozialstaat". Note that the term "sozial" in German does not mean "socialism", but rather "caring for others"; it's an antonym to "anti-social", not to "capitalistic".
my experience is very different. maybe an indicator that the info-bubble is stronger than we believe and it all depends on where and _what_ we are.
The "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (SPD) literally has "socialist" in its name. Not once have I heard anyone claiming that they're linked to communism or Soviet Russia.
It literally does not.
First off it's not in a very large part of the world (including the US). Read about the history of workers rights for example. These things didn't materialise out of thin air and are closely related to socialism ideals and social movements of the early 20th century
> Note that the term "sozial" in German does not mean "socialism", but rather "caring for others"
Which is exactly what I'm describing and includes "healthcare, paid vacations, &c."
I'm not a German history expert but in France most of the "social" (hint) progress came from the "socialist" parties with Leon Blum &co for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Blum
> André Léon Blum was a French socialist politician and three-time Prime Minister.
> gave workers the right to strike
> initiated collective bargaining
> legislated the mandating of 12 days of paid annual leave
> legislated a 40-hour working week (outside of overtime)
> raised wages (15% for the lowest-paid workers, and 7% for the relatively well-paid)
> stipulated that employers would recognise shop stewards.
> ensured that there would be no retaliation against strikers.
Communism, stalinims, totalitarianism.
Socialism suppose encapsulate ideas where you invest into people (social)
so·cial relating to society or its organization.
Investing into ideas that protect and support the very fabric of society, families, healthcare, education, consumer protection - anything that makes it easier for people to prosper and not be abused. It makes people healthy, educated and protected and they will prosper thus creating more wealth.
There was an article here recently that growing up in stable home make you far more successful (avg 75k per year earnings). Its common sense. There will be no next apple created in tent cities of LA.
Observations about the left/right alignment of American politicians are, naturally, made in the context of American politics. It makes little sense to compare Joe Biden's politics to European candidates. He is compared to Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. Compared to them (even compared to Clinton and Obama), he is significantly farther left.
Imagine how well the converse of the argument would track for a European. "You know that candidate on the Right who wants to abolish your state-run healthcare system? You can tell that's not a radical position--just look at how many Americans prefer a private system!"
Absolutely false. Are you American yourself?
As the Danish PM put it,
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Look at the french definition on wiki for example:
"The word socialism covers a very diverse set of currents of thought and political movements1, whose common point is to seek a fairer social and economic organization. The original goal of socialism is to achieve social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities2 and, especially for the Marxist-inspired currents, to establish a classless society. More broadly, socialism can be defined as a political tendency, historically marked on the left, whose basic principle is the aspiration for a better world, based on harmonious social organization and the fight against injustice. Depending on the context, the word socialism or the adjective socialist can qualify an ideology, a political party, a political regime or a social organization."
This has lost a lot of its relevance since when it was originally coined in XIX century. I mean, what are the means of production in companies like CD Project Red? The laptops and workstations? Employees can easily afford them. Since we've moved beyond the factory-based model of capitalism, it's become clear that it's not the control of means of production that is the central issue.
The means to deploy knowledge. This ranges from a robust social safety net (healthcare, childcare, housing, food, etc) to as you say laptops and workstations.
> Employees can easily afford them.
For a very specific set of Employees, this is true. For others the outlay for even a derelict hand-me-down laptop is the difference between making this months rent and not.
> Since we've moved beyond the factory-based model of capitalism
The factory isn't making "widgets" anymore, but it's still there and it's making /something/.
> it's become clear that it's not the control of means of production that is the central issue
Owning the means has, is, and will be the central issue until we are post scarcity.
Which is not "...characterised by government giving handouts".
For example: was the USSR socialist? That's the common understanding, but plenty of socialists disagree, arguing that socialism means that workers own the means of production, and that in the USSR, workers didn't really own the factories, not in any meaningful sense, since at the end of the day they were under central government control.
In particular it isn't "Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does, the more socialister it is."