> Utterly revolting how the EU has become an authoritarian and socialist project expanding its power over EU citizens and countries.
As the link explains, the Commission is proposing this at the behest of member states. You have it completely backward. Your elected national representatives are trying to force this through, and ironically, your elected MEPs (European representatives) are trying to save you.
Anti-EU people are often so unbelievably misinformed.
The AfD literally has meetings about mass deportations and many members at the top are literally neo-nazis. One member of parliament was even involved in a group that was planning a coup. When they started defending the Waffen-SS instead of discussing real problems it was even too much for Rassemblement National. You talking points about fake news are following the party line to denounce existing institutions and to appeal to conservatives.
There is no way one can describe the AfD as center-right. This is obvious fact that emerges from any amount observation of post-WW2 politics in that country, and how the AfD compares to standard center-right parties like the CDU/CDS and the FDP.
Complaints about fake news and what the mainstream media supposedly says about anything are usually, in themselves, fake news.
>But why would you vote for other (far right) authoritarians?
OP implies he wouldn't, but that regular voters would: most voters don't think things through that much, so when they get mad about some issue, they'll vote against whoever they think is to blame for it.
this is not a socialist decision. In fact, this is a decision that benefits big corpos and certain substrate of ppl that want to stay in power (while socialism means that decisions should benefit general population)
Please don't conflate socialism with authoritarianism. There's non-authoritarian socialists; there's non-socialist authoritarians. They are two independent axis.
In the case of the EU, it's a capitalist authoritarian project.
It's not possible to achieve socialism without authoritarianism because that's the only way to enforce social ownership of the means of production against private ownership...
Edit:
There is no meaningul difference between socialism and communism, especially on this aspect (ownership of means of production), which is key to conclude that the system must be authoritarian.
"According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death"" [1]
The 'distinction' was created by Lenin and the Bolcheviks for political purposes.
"The distinction between communism and socialism became salient in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, interpreting communism specifically to mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism and later that of Marxism–Leninism,[53] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism." [1]
In Europe, most socialist parties have evolved to simply seek to implement socialist-inspired ideas within a capitalist society and perhaps state capitalism, whereas communist parties stayed on Lenin's line and seek to overthrow the system to set up a fully socialist society.
What is wrong about the means of production being under social ownership in socialism? Yes, socialism allows also some private property and there is spectrum of how much it is a planned economy but social ownership of the means of production is a central component of socialism.
Socialism does not require an authoritarian state, period. It's much larger than that, and it is a gradient. Just like "not being socialist" does not mean that you are libertarian: you can be a moderate liberal.
For instance, saying that public transportation should be public (i.e. belong to the state) does not mean that the state is authoritarian. You can have more moderate forms of socialism.
I find it interesting that the Wikipedia articles are pretty different in different languages. In French it is much more moderate than in English, for instance: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme.
> For instance, saying that public transportation should be public (i.e. belong to the state) does not mean that the state is authoritarian.
Sure, but that's not socialism. That's state capitalism at most.
There is not gradient. If society is socialist then as per definition and as explained there must be authoritarianism to suppress any private initiative.
The article in French says the same thing as I wrote before: "socialist parties" are no longer socialist:
"Le socialisme démocratique, c'est-à-dire un socialisme converti à la démocratie libérale et respectueux du jeu parlementaire, représente aujourd'hui la tendance majoritaire des partis socialistes, qui n'envisagent plus la rupture avec l'économie de marché."
If they no longer want to get rid of the market economy and private ownership then they are no longer socialist at all! Socialism has demonstrably failed so they have been trying to adapt while keeping the name...
> There is not gradient. If society is socialist then as per definition and as explained there must be authoritarianism to suppress any private initiative.
This logic works both ways. There is authoritarianism to enforce private ownership in capitalism. The police is a tool of the capitalist class, designed to suppress any protest against the capitalist system. It even extends internationally, to Imperialism. One only needs to think of banana republics, or more recently, Coca Cola murdering union leaders.
> The article in French says the same thing as I wrote before: "socialist parties" are no longer socialist:
That's not what the sentence you quoted says. Do you speak french? Just to know (respectfully) if we need to debate the meaning of that sentence, or if I need to translate it for you.
That sentence precisely means that there is a gradient.
I am French, with an understanding of what words actually mean. This article is highly misleading, to be polite. Socialism that has converted to liberal democracy and no longer seeks to replace the market economy is simply not socialism by definition, it's basically social democracy. That's what I have been writing and repeating: It's not because it's called "socialist party" that it is socialist, and that has been the case for decades. Maybe you're too young to grasp this fully.
You think that it's not socialism anymore (which is fair, "socialisme democratique" is not "socialism" anymore), and I say that socialism has evolved ("socialisme democratique" is an evolution of socialism that works in democracies). In the end it's just a difference in the definition.
The fact remains that the US don't really have the equivalent of "Parti Socialiste": the democrats would be on the right wing in France, right?
That wasn't really my point but rather that social ownership of the means of production is a defining characteristic of socialism (as it was conceived in opposition to capitalism). Maybe there is a voluntary way to it but I don't think that has happened anywhere on a large scale so far.
These days there is a tendency to use socialism and practical present-day social democracy rather interchangeably, but I think that is problematic (and the latter doesn't really aim for socialism anymore, I'd say).
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.
And so does practically any poll in any EU country, as well as many non-EU countries where people are desperate to get in (be it in the Western Balkans or the Caucasus).
No, Germans quite like the EU. Same as in France, it's that popular and Brexit was so much of a disaster, that the far-right parties stopped talking about leaving the EU and moved to just vague stuff about reforming it.
Socialist?? The EU is still primarily a neoliberalist institution, I can't think of a single socialist reform it upheld. It's all about enforcing privatization of what wasn't yet and fostering economic competition among its members. Are you just throwing words you don't understand?
Regional development, common agricultural policy, European social fund... There are many things that could be considered a bit socialist. All the directives regulating business, competition regulation too... EU is not really classical liberal or nationalist.
and considering the examples you cite, that's obviously a good thing, despite the fact that for most americans 'socialism' aims to be a scarecrow word.
Oh, if your definition of "collective control over the means of production" is as broad as "there exists a governing body which creates and enforces policies which regulate the private sector", then I guess literally every single modern nation state style society is "socialist" in your eyes. I must say that's not the most useful definition, and certainly not what anyone who's a proponent of anything they call "socialism" means by "socialism".
Like "left/right", it's always a question of degree. There is no pure version of any system. I was responding to a comment that seems to think the EU policies have not a trace of socialism in them, which is incorrect.
Edit: and the extent of EU regulations is quite enormous.
No, you are incorrect. There is nothing socialist about the EU. Production, distribution and exchange are not owned by the people. Elected bodies owning them is not socialist.
Tell me more how all the money transfers are neoliberal? How the “creating of european idea” is neoliberal? How “we must have minimal taxes in europe” is neoliberal. Industrial subsidies for car and aeroplane companies. Compulsary social and retirement policies. In EU socialism is the norm, everything outside is branded almost extreme right. And right is a bad word in EU. If you take right and cut out russian support, keep taxes and less money distribution, promote personal tesponsibility you are still extreme right.
> If you take right and cut out russian support, keep taxes and less money distribution, promote personal tesponsibility you are still extreme right.
That describes to a T the French party "Les Republicains", and nobody calls them far right. So no, you need the extremist "migrants bad" with zero nuance, heavy doses of populism with no foundation, promises of more money distribution (in France, the Front National is promising raising the minimum wage, bringing back the wealth tax, and other such populist "give money to the real people" things), and yes, lots of Russian support and money and dicksucking, and you get a classic European far-right party.
> In EU socialism is the norm
What is your definition of socialism? Considering the EU hasn't nationalised/EU-lised anything to control the means of production, I can guarantee you it's wrong.
The EU is neoliberal in many aspects, like the railway packages, strict rules on country subsidies into many sectors (countries can no longer just bail out their national industries when they fail). But it isn't only neoliberal. Consumer protections with warranties, GDPR, Digital Markets and Services Acts, etc. aren't strictly neoliberal.
I don't know why anyone would think something as complex as the EU can be described with a political label. Hell, most parties can barely be described with a single label, let alone a multi-government entity with many institutions and responsible for some of the greatest progress and unity the continent has ever seen.
> in France, the Front National is promising raising the minimum wage, bringing back the wealth tax, and other such populist "give money to the real people" things
If there's no plan on how to finance such things in one of the countries with the highest public spending as % of GDP, relatively high budget deficits, a high debt to GDP ratio, slipping credit rating, monstrous pension obligations and impending demographic slowdown... Yes they are. Empty bullshit being said because it's popular and easy to be said. No substance, no real plan, no real solutions.
Because it's little more than xenophobia, which has always been extremist.
You don't want people with radically different value systems being allowed to migrate without making efforts to integrate themselves? Sure, say so. That's a reasonable position that can be debated. Maybe you'd be OK with asylum seekers fleeing for their lives, maybe not, to be discussed.
You don't want anyone different to come to the country? That's xenophobia, and considering the demographic challenges facing the EU, stupid. And of course the funny thing is that most of the people espousing those extremist views and voting for the "migrants bad" parties are living in the countryside where there are practically no migratns and everyone knows everyone else. Cities, where those migrants (be they Afghanis or Ukrainians who ran for their lives, Sudanese looking for a better life) are actually concentrated, are markedly pro-much more open to migrants parties.
Welcoming all migrants can work in countries with no social net like US in their biggest boom. Come and work. EU countries are stretched and more and more people with low to no skills are gonna be really hard on the budgets. They cant even guarantee to pay people born there nice retirement in 30 years.
Are you under the impression that anyone can just come into an EU country and start receiving aid?
There are programs to help asylum seekers (people literally running for their lives) settle in, but there are lots of criteria to fill to be able to claim that, and it takes weeks to years of processing to validate your claims you're indeed running for your life and there's an actual risk for your life.
I understand that. But the migrants also need housing and food while they wait. I am absolutely for some kind of immigration. But not for "everybody that comes here will stay". And absolutely for trying to engage people into european society. Fundamental islam is a real thing. Second generation of immigrants is getting radicalizes and european union needs to do something with it. And if somebody accuses me on hating islam, i dont like all religions the same.
Depends on the definition of socialism. For me the flow through retirement is socialist. The healthcare that forces people to pay money to non functioning system based on their income is socialist.
> The healthcare that forces people to pay money to non functioning system based on their income is socialist.
Non functioning? All EU countries with public healthcare score better than the US in the healthcare rankings (and life expectancy), by a good measure. And some of them are the best in the world. This [1] is just one source, you can find multiple ones with the same conclusion.
Norway has huge oil reservers, Swiss healthcare is basically private. We could go deeper. NHS in UK is in the shambles for example.
Switzerland has universal health care, regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. There are no free state-provided health services, but private health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland#:~:t...).
Europe is constantly pushing for privatization of public sectors such as rail, electricty... Subsidies would be socialist if the people owned the companies that received them, which is absolutely not the case. All the money transfers and other policies you talk about are only carried out in the sole goal of evening out a playing field for the european private sector to compete in.
You are right in that it is not exactly neoliberal, I believe the correct term is "ordoliberal".
> Utterly revolting how the EU has become an authoritarian and socialist project expanding its power over EU citizens and countries.
Sounds word by word like a Nigel Farage speech campaigning for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.
It seems that his populist speech lingers a bit after achieving his goal, Brexit.
Nevertheless, years after such an event, there can be no doubt that he did not have the citizens' interests at heart. Of course, neither he nor the other parrots who spread that kind of discourse have faced the consequences of their vile actions.
