[flagged]
US people typically don't see the difference between communism and socialism.
From an EU point of view, US people see everything that is not right or far right as "the bad guys in Marvel comics".
If you listen to Leninists, 'communism' is the ultimate form of 'socialism' but really that was created because Russia's industry was judged too undeveloped to achieve what Marx described. But there is no meaningful systemic difference.
I think "EU people" know that very well, including from experience.
What's happened is that most "socialist" parties have shifted and now really only seek to implement socialist-inspired ideas with a capitalist society, whereas communist parties still seek actual socialism.
It's a bit like the difference between "liberal" and "libertarian". It is a gradient.
Socialism is a more global term that includes communism. Communism wants to remove social classes and the notion of state. But there are ways of being socialist in a democratic state.
It is a gradient, you can be more or less extreme. Communism is a pretty extreme notion of socialism.
Some EU countries are more "social", i.e. the socialist parties are strong and society is organized in a much, much social way than the US. But US people have this tendency to think that either you are libertarian, or you are communist.
There is no gradient. Either you want private ownership or you want socialised ownership. I think you are not quite clear about what "socialism" means because there are so many "socialist" parties in Europe that have not actually been socialist for 70+ years...
For instance in France, with people from the socialist party always referred to as "les socialistes"... Well, Miterrand and, say, Strauss-Khan, and even Macron (former banker...) who was finance minister in a "socialist government" are obviously as socialist as Barak Obama. The historic French socialist party, the SFIO, founded in 1905 was really socialist and split following the Russian revolution, whose supporters created the communist party (and they were actually the majority of the SFIO's members). They stayed socialist while the "socialist party" shifted over time to effectively social democracy. I think that this is because of the realisation that socialism requires authoritarism and does not work anyway, while pushing for more social measures within capitalism and a market economy can work.
My feeling is that US people tend to struggle understanding that there are cultural differences in the world, and think that "socialism" has to mean what they understand from their US-centric point of view.
"Socialism" is a bad word in the US, not at all in the EU.
> are obviously as socialist as Barak Obama
In my country, we tend to say that Barack Obama is our right wing, and those right to him are our far right. And that's not something you can debate: that's how we see it in my country. For me, Mitterrand is clearly to the left of Obama.
And Macron is a fraud, I don't see the point in bringing him here.
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).
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.
There are still parties that seek socialism, or groups within parties that overall do not.
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.
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!
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.
> Turns out I studied Marx
Pull the other one!
Sweden also has one of the freest markets on Earth, even more than the USA.
Yep! 90% of the members of PSOE are not actually socialists, they only bear the name of it. Take for example the Democratic Party in Italy (PD), it's member of the PSOE, but it has became mainly "a Catholic-inspired, centrist, catch-all party" [1] with sprinkles of liberal individual rights (mostly LGBTQ stuff).
Liberals are not socialists.
[1] quoting Wikipedia here on the definition of the Christian Democracy party in Italy (DC) that ruled consecutively for over 40 years since the end of WWII whose leftist component merged into PD together with the rightmost component of the former PCI (communist party). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democracy_(Italy))
Check their programmes.
> Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.[6] Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative,[7][8][9] or employee.[10][11] Traditionally, socialism is on the left wing of the political spectrum.[12] Types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, and the structure of management in organizations.[13][14]
Go and find any even remotely mainstream "Socialist" party advocating for anything close to the above. They are unquestionably left leaning, but that means more social policies (for the people, like increasing minimum wage, expanding workers' protections, investing in youth, etc.), not seizing the means of production in any way.
Hell, the last seizing of some of the means of production in France happened under the neoliberal, "neither left nor right" (but in reality centre-right) current president, Macron - STX France (currently and formerly Chantiers de l'Atlantique, one of the biggest shipyards in Europe) and EDF (national electricity provider and producer, and owner of all nuclear power plants in France). Under his predecessor, the socialist Francois Hollande, from the Socialist party, there was only a 12% investment in PSA Group (Peugeot-Citroen, which has since then bought Opel and merged with Fiat-Chrysler to become Stellantis).