Have been to any actual socialist country? Have experienced what scarcity means and what it feels like to be locked into your own country without a real chance of leaving until you reach retirement age?
The point is to meet somewhere in the middle and find compromises that prohibit uncontrolled growth of wealth and power by single individuals without crippling the economy too much. It does not have to be one extreme or the other.
I have yet to see someone advocating for actual socialism. There is a huge difference between social democracy and socialism, but it's a popular argumentation technique in the US to pretend that they are the same.
There are socialist parties in every European countries, and some of them get a lot of votes.
In Germany, Die Linke is anti-capitalist and advocates "actual socialism" and current has 39 MPs in the Bundestag.
In France, LFI (France Unbowed) is anti-capitalist and advocates "actual socialism" and currently has 71 MPs in the French parliament (second largest party by number of MPs...). There are also several smaller parties that are more "hardcore", including the historic French Communist Party that still has 8 MPs and 14 Senators...
Now I do agree that social democracy is not socialism, but again, plenty of socialists in Europe, too.
On a related note, when people claim that they are "anti-capitalist" (which seems to be more popular than claiming to be socialist) it does not really leave many alternatives, just semantic flavours of socialism.
Perhaps it's important to point out that socialism != communism.
I think this is something the US really doesn't understand about Europe.
Socialism is about putting people first and making sure no one is left behind by society, which is the opposite of communism (and capitalism).
In fact, US capitalism is much closer to communism regarding societal outcomes (social injustice, power concentration) than European socialism. It is very much possible to be anti-capitalist and anti-communist at the same time .
Unsere Geschichte ist geprägt von der Idee des demokratischen Sozialismus, einer Gesellschaft der Freien und Gleichen, in der unsere Grundwerte verwirklicht sind. Sie verlangt eine Ordnung von Wirtschaft, Staat und Gesellschaft, in der die bürgerlichen, politischen, sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Grundrechte für alle Menschen garantiert sind, alle Menschen ein Leben ohne Ausbeutung, Unterdrückung und Gewalt, also in sozialer und menschlicher Sicherheit führen können.
Das Ende des Staatssozialismus sowjetischer Prägung hat die Idee des demokratischen Sozialismus nicht widerlegt, sondern die Orientierung der Sozialdemokratie an Grundwerten eindrucksvoll bestätigt. Der demokratische Sozialismus bleibt für uns die Vision einer freien, gerechten und solidarischen Gesellschaft, deren Verwirklichung für uns einedauernde Aufgabe ist. Das Prinzip unseres Handelns ist die soziale Demokratie.
You may want to look into the ideologies of European political parties that have "socialist" in their names, instead of relying on definitions from the Soviet revolution.
Socialism in Europe is social democracy. The only difference between "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe is how fractionally close to the right or left side of the center line they are.
The definition of socialism does not change and has not changed, and it's not "social democracy".
Many European political parties that have "socialist" in their names are historically socialist but have all but abandonned that ideology in favour of social democracy (i.e they have moved right) because, as we know, socialism was tried and it failed so there has been a lot of soul-searching on the left since the fall of the USSR and al.
That does not mean that there aren't socialists anymore, including in major parties.
For the more central block parties, this is correct. But for many ultra-left and ultra-right parties, this is not necessarily true. There are true Marxist or Stalinist blocks in many of the ultra-left. There are straight-up fascists in the right wing "national socialist" parties.
ultra-right parties may have "socialist" in their name, but they are typically not in a sense connected to Marx&Hegel. Example: the "National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (Hitler's NSDAP) was not marxist.
Yes, and I never said so. But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic.
And neither the marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party) nor the fascists in the far-right parties are social democratic.
(Of course there is no such thing as a "social democracy", in the sense that the government structure is modified from a "non-social" democracy. But there can be democrats who push for a socially oriented governance. For example: Let's have affordable healthcare. Yes, that means that it cost more for rich people..
Democrats here means "people who want to take part in a democracy". not the US party. Not that they are liberal in the European sense either.)
)
> But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic
That's actually largely the case in Western/Middle Europe.
> marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party)
Which are often not seen as socialist. Social/socialist typically signals that the party is inside the system supporting political spectrum. "communist/marxist" usually signals that the party is at least partly outside the system supporting political spectrum.
It’s a mix that includes social democracy and democratic socialism, as well as things to the right of the former (Britain’s Labour is still nominally socialist) and left of the latter.
> Socialism is about putting people first and making sure no one is left behind by society, which is the opposite of communism (and capitalism).
The problem with that sentence is that you can say the same sentence with socialism/communism/capitalism in any order and you would find people who would sign it. And to some degree, maybe all would be right.
Out of currently 733 MPs with a parliament with "proportional representation", where the number of seats is proportional to the number of votes (Germany-wide, not local). Die Linke thus has 5.3% seats in the Bundestag. Thus this is not "a lot of votes" in relation to the voting population.
> "anti-capitalist" (which seems to be more popular than claiming to be socialist)
Anti-capitalism is found in right-wing parties, too. Like the German AFD.
I don't think this gives an accurate picture. Even a 5% party can have an outsized influence on the politics. And it's not clear what the next election will bring.
> Anti-capitalism is found in right-wing parties, too. Like the German AFD.
Well, many/most of their proponents now seem to be fans of an older party which had national socialism in the name, so no surprise.
In reality, the market rules and social net in most of Europe and US are not /that/ different. Both allow private ownership of production, both have market economy.
Yes, the US says it's a free market, but it isn't. It's maybe free-er. Germany has a "social market economy", which mostly means that some (insurance) costs are lifted from the incur-er and distributed socially. Both have a social security equivalent, with Germany better coverage for unemployment, and US better retirement, AFAICT.
> Even a 5% party can have an outsized influence on the politics
Die Linke does not have an "outsized influence". It's also shrinking.
It may seem to have "outsized influence" for someone from the US or the UK, with their different voting system, which practically creates a two-party system. In a proportional representation system smaller parties have influence, too - for example by being a coalition member.
Die Linke has not been a member of a coalition in Germany, so far, and it is not expected that this will change.
> which mostly means that some (insurance) costs are lifted from the incur-er and distributed socially
That's a very narrow view. Try to get a German-style workers council at an US company. Good luck!
> Die Linke does not have an "outsized influence". It's also shrinking.
Yes, it's shrinking because Sarah exited left, came back in on the right, and now has her own party with blackjack and racists.
> It may seem to have "outsized influence" for someone from the US or the UK, with their different voting system, which practically creates a two-party system. In a proportional representation system smaller parties have influence, too - for example by being a coalition member.
Well, my point is that without explanation, 5% sounds like "completely irrelevant" for many people. So I guess we are in agreement. But even if you are familiar with the German system, do you not think that both FDP and Greens had an outsized influence in the just ending coalition compared to the SPD, in relation to their relative voting percentage? And historically, the FDP and CSU have a lot more influence that what would be proportional to their vote share compared to the bigger partners.
I am not saying this is bad, I am saying that even a 5% party can have a relatively large impact on politics in the German system.
Die Linke has not been in a coalition on the Bund level, but it certainly was so in the Laender. While Laender are a lot less powerful compared to US states, that's not nothing.
>That's a very narrow view. Try to get a German-style workers council at an US company. Good luck!
Implementation detail. An alternative are strong unions. Some US unions are stronger than German unions. Ask the teachers about the "Dritte Weg".
My point is not: US and Germany are the same. My point is: It's a gradual difference. Not a complete systems change.
> And historically, the FDP and CSU have a lot more influence that what would be proportional to their vote share compared to the bigger partners.
I don't think the influence is "outsized". Any party with 5% shares AND being in a coalition has much more influence than a party with 5% AND not in a coalition. A party with 4.9% may have very little influence, when not in a coalition and not even represented in the Bundestag. There are steps from very little influence to normal influence. The CSU never had that much special influence, since they were basically the CDU with a different name, but in Bavaria. It appeared larger because it was historically a different party, but basically only as an historic accident. The politics of CDU and CSU are largely the same. The CSU (only in Bavaria) getting more persons into the government may look like "more influence", but is largely the same policy as the CDU (in Germany minus Bavaria).
The FDP has left the current coalition, exactly BECAUSE they thought their influence was too low and they had to agree to too many unwanted compromises.
> My point is: It's a gradual difference. Not a complete systems change.
The currently policy landscape looks very different to me. Ultra-rich billionaires ruling US politics.
Chancellor Scholz removed Christian Lindner from the position as Finance Minister.
The FDP then left the coalition. Die ZEIT writes:
"Die FDP zieht alle ihre Minister aus der Bundesregierung zurück. Sie wollten ihren Rücktritt geschlossen beim Bundespräsidenten einreichen, kündigte Fraktionschef Christian Dürr in Berlin an. Damit beendet die FDP das Dreierbündnis der Ampelkoalition."
One of the FDP ministers left the FDP and stayed in the Scholz government.
