I have never ever before in my whole life seen anyone, either online or offline, under any circumstance, seen someone point to something good the EU did and claim it as an example of socialism working. It's simply not socialist.
Every nation in the EU has their own healthcare system.
I live in the Netherlands. I pay more than 150 euros per month out of my own pocket for health insurance (it's mandatory to have one and they are in this price range), and even though I pay that much per month, I still have to pay the first 385 euros out of my own pocket if I go to the doctor for anything.
I fucking wish that healthcare was socialized.
And do you know what I get for this price. Access to a private GP that will at most give you some ibuprofen before they send you home.
"Socialized healthcare" is not "socialist healthcare", in fact a fundamentally capitalist society would benefit from socialized healthcare simply because the state subsidizing the health of workers benefits the owning class...
Healthcare is a matter for individual countries in Europe and its organisation varies a lot.
For instance, in the UK the NHS is indeed in essence a socialist construct. But in France GPs are all private practices and the system is essentially a mandatory insurance.
What is the difference between socialism and communism, then?
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.
> What is the difference between socialism and communism
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.
As said, most socialist parties in Europe are no longer socialist...
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.
Are you from the US, and trying to tell me that what EU people have been meaning by "socialism" in the last "70+ years" is wrong because that's not your definition?
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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!
I am perfectly aware of the existence of socialist parties in Europe... Let me get this straight: are you really saying that because there are socialist parties in Europe, the European states are socialists?
Most of the EU states are currently led by liberal/neo-liberal/right-wing parties dude...
I think it's more the Nordic countries which are seen as socialist; the EU as an institution is the kind of light-touch, states are sovereign, "fundamental rights and trade only" focus that Republicans seem to wish the USA federal government was.
Nordic countries are absurdly capitalistic nations, Sweden has one of the biggest wealth inequalities in the world (not income, wealth, the true measure of capital).
Sweden also has one of the freest markets on Earth, even more than the USA.
If you are able to you should really visit Europe, because it really sounds like you have the version presented to you by your favorite media. Reality is very different as the many many comments already point out to you. This is mostly for historic and cultural reasons which is hard to understand if you not actually seen it in practice.
> So you also believe the "socialist parties" aren't actually socialist?
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))
In the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't Democratic nor People's nor a Republic, yes.
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).
Since we are on a technical/scientific site I'll put it in mathematical terms:
implementing social policies is a Necessary But Not Sufficient condition for a Country to be socialist.
There are literally zero countries in the EU that are socialist, they only have ~some~ social policies.
Socialism is not social democracy. Socialism is a economical system where workers own the means of production instead of capital owners.
You do not know the meaning of political terms and are using your own preconceived notions of what they mean to then call a very capitalistic institution (as the EU is) something it's not.
Educate yourself, it will do wonders for you and everyone you interact with.
