Socialists in Spain and France..what does it mean?

[BayCityProgressive]

So the socialists have won huge victories in Spain and France....my question is are these parties actually socialist or do they dress themselves up in populist rhetoric? I understand that most people vote on a single issue and in Spain most wanted the troops out of Iraq so the Socialists won.The public probably does not support the socializing of industry...but do the parties themselves? I guess to make a long question short..are they really socialist?

[alcuno]

1. I know that Spain is not socialist.

I think it's called the Socialist's Workers Party, what we would call populists. Having spent time in Europe, the people seem to have a sense of being part of something much larger than their community or even their country.

We're very isolated in the US; both from other geographical parts of the country AND from other countries. We don't get out much.

[arcos]

2. socialists = socialdemocrats...

at least in most countries of Europe that is the case. The Socialist Workers Party in Spain, the Socialist Party in France, the Labour Party in the UK (not Blair, though :P), the Socialist Party in Greece and Portugal... Don't know about others, but this is usually the case.

They are all members of the Socialist International, the international organization of socialist and socialdemocratic parties.

So, no, they are not really socialist. And ever since the Third Way of Clinton, Blair and Schröeder succeded, they have moved even more towards the center.

Believe it or not, by the PSOE standards in Spain, Zapatero is a centrist. And he was criticized a lot within the party because of his economic policies. However, the Iraq issue was far more important in Spain, especially after the deceiving policies of the PP government after the terrorist attacks.

on edit: And this is the case not only in Europe. Member parties of the Socialist International are found everywhere in the world, and the vast majority (perhaps all of them) support capitalism.

[sweetheart]

9. I find your response short on truth

The socialists i've met in europe are downright militant and are
everything but "blairiites".

Here's one that breaks your mold from the UK, holding seats in
the parliament.

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

Soclalism is very real and strong in europe... something totally
forgotten stateside... and they are loth to talk about it with
capitalist wankers (read "americans"). All the same, that socialism
brews beneath the surface, like it would in the US if there were any
sort of real democracy.

[arcos]

10. I was talking about the political structure of most of the parties...

They've moved to the center and that's a fact... yes, some still are 'pure' socialists, but the vast majority have endorsed capitalism. They are no longer trying to abolish it.

[sweetheart]

12. yes, thats the moderates

trying to increase their numbers by pandering to conservatives.

What i find in europe, and next month i'll be re-testing this thesis
in several more european nations, is that the intensive socialism
of times past has not died off, rather, like dennis kucinich, been
ignored by public media.

This is why most of tony blairs party disagrees with him and would
dish him if he were not "winning"... those "old labour" people are
not pure-capitalists.

What bothered me in your original post was the dismissal of european
socialism as gone and sold over to "social democrats". Not true,
as of my last 7 years in europe. Rather, the parties have changed
like you say, but the socialists are just as intense as before, but
suffering from the Murdoch syndrome, that plagues the USA as well
in the form of Faux news and the sinister ass himself.

American republican corporatists have always been deeply afraid of
the european socialists, and the new wave is to pretend they don't
exist, or have sold out to tony blair.

The going theory on Tony in the pub is that he is an american, and
that he has and is subverting europe to help america, because he
does not really believe in europe, rather in a hegemony. Most of
the people in the pub chime up with "FUCK TONY BLAIR"... and a long
dead silence and we don't discuss politics anymore. He has become
the british bush, and his social democratic wings are a bit short.

It is not about capitalism, but subverting european solidarity to
give america unlimited hegemony. Clinton fucked his buddies worse
than his enemies... same same. You're right about that part.

[Aidoneus]

3. They're not, no

Many of these social-democrat parties are really on the front lines of defense for capitalism and, ultimately, world imperialism.

They *are* a decent PR slap to the outgoing rightwing regimes and to our Bushmen, but not at all representing any worthwhile revolutionary progress (indeed, a step back in such regards).

[JHBowden]

4. Fabian socialists perhaps.

They seem like welfare-statists to me. (I'm not being pejorative.)

[sweetheart]

14. The welfare statists are the bush cabal, get it straight

The europeans are minor league by comparison. (i'm not being
perjorative)

[KurtNilsen]

19. What is welfare statists?

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Well, I would define 'welfare statists'

as people in favour of a fully developed welfare state - government funded healthcare, childcare, unemployment benefits you can live on, and so on. Sweetheart would appear to have a completely different definition, which I'd love to hear - or there was a lot of sarcasm in that post that I couldn't detect.

[KurtNilsen]

22. Well, right then. Thanks for the answer. I guess I am a

welfare statist then, and proud of it :-)

Sweethearts post confused me too.

[kskiska]

5. I take it the wingnuts would rather have

Generalissimo Francisco Franco, facist.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. But you see...

Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

HA! I'm first with that one!

[La Resistance]

6. Social Democrats is a more accurate term

they are pro-worker rights (35 hour work week in France), supporting assembly and organization rights for labor. They are pro-universal health care and support/create many social programs that we would be amazed at (one of my faves when I lived in France was the government subsidized trips to summer camp for ALL children- rich or poor- something considered a RIGHT and not a privilege for all children). They are not so much pro-socialization of industry, but they want to keep them on a very short leash. The taxes on industry are extremely high and business is highly scrutinized by the government. To the last of my knowledge the only truly socialized industries are Air France (that may have changed over the past couple of years- I think I remember there being talk of a privatization) and SNCF (the rail service). Health Care is tightly controlled as is the Pharmaceutical industry, but they remain in private hands.

To answer simply, I think it is more of a populist term these days. The roots of the Socialist are truly from pure socialist ideology, but things like the Marshall Plan and the growth of industry and trade have forced socialists to evolve into something that strays from their true ideology, but they still stand for many of the core issues.

[sspiderjohn]

7. Yes. Benefits of socialists controlling capitalist oligarchs include:

Shorter work weeks (I think France is down to 32 hours a week, not sure though), worker protections including more guaranteed time-off yearly (I think about 6 wks each year), universal health care, LIVING wages for all workers. My daughter recently visited Western Europe and tells me you would not believe the difference in the AVERAGE life style -- how much more relaxed and less stressful it is over there.

These Western European (and the Scandinavian) nations have what I'd call "Socialism Lite" -- not all industries are 100% state owned, as pure socialism would require. The governments keep enough control over the nations' industries and resources to be certain that ALL citizens benefit from them -- enough control to keep the greedy capitalist oligarchs from stealing the resources of their country, to keep them from decimating the middle class, from taking over the political parties and the media and the government, as has clearly happened here.

Example: in Norway, which has a heavily socialist economy, when they recently (3 or 4 years ago) found a large oil reservoir in their marine territory, the entire nation debated how the extra wealth should be spent -- because revenue from this additional resource would go to ALL the people of Norway, not just some fat cat oil magnate.

[KurtNilsen]

20. I am from Norway, and we have had oil for a long time.

In fact, we are probably passed the peak at the moment.

We invest a lot of the oil money into a giant investment fund. This is supposed to let Norway secure good pensionpayment for retired people, and secure the welfare state into the future.

Norway will still have a pension crisis, but not nearly as bad as many other European countries.

Cheers.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. That nations that are hundreds of years older than the U.S. have opted

for social cooperation.

[JanMichael]

13. Just like there are different shades of Christians, there are different...

...shades of Socialists and Socialism. There are many socialists in the SPUSA that are to the right of Kerry (Especially Kuchich)! I shit you not. Anti-Abortion free-traders all the way...

That said, my gut tells me that the French, Scottish, Spanish and Chilean, Socialists are "true" Socialists, in the sense of the Cooperative commonwealth (In the sense of collective control, and cooperation, of the means of human production. An Opposition to Exploitive Capitalism.), but find it necessary to work under the Capitalist system so they sound rather Fabian at times. Don't forget that the Capitalists aren't shy of overturning elections and shooting the place up.

What's their alternative?

There are none at this time.

[Blue_Chill]

15. It means a lot of people don't know what socialism means

Socialism is the full control of production and distribution of goods in a nation. It's crap, a pipe dream of morons that dream of sticking it to the rich.

What you see in Europe are people that seek to increase employee rights at the expense of tax payers and companies and things of that nature. Big difference.

[JanMichael]

17. You just love name calling, eh?

Capitalism is the full control of production and distribution of goods in a nation by arrogant Plutocrats. It's crap, a pipe dream for morons that dream of becoming rich at the expense of others.

[Capt_Nemo]

23. LOL! great answer!

back to the question "socialists" in Western Europe are not even
the "social-democrats" they were back in the 70's. They all got
duped in this "third way" empty rhetoric and are very much centrist
and not much leftist in their center-left stance

[Sorry.]

16. Not Socialist

Most of these parties were at some point Marxist and ostensibly revolutionary. They've all slid toward a centrist welfare-statist position at some point in their history.

Now I'd go as far to say that they're actively right-wing. They push forward neoliberal economics (opening trade barriers, privatising state services) but with a human face (worker legislation, bits of public spending). It's dangerous because in the long term they're strengthening capitalism by improving capital's leverage over workers.

France and Germany's "progress" toward "modernisation" (basically gutting the welfare state) has been held up more by trade union activism than the politicians (as always).

[Kellanved]

18. Spain: a lot; France: not so much

First the disclaimer: while they are named socialist parties, they are in fact Social Democrats. So, don't expect any revolutions to break out. In-fact I'd put the Party Leaders somewhere close to Schröder, policy wise. Especially in France the Social Democrats have quite a problem with their reputation, but so do the Gaullists.

Both, in France and in Spain, those parties are not new. They won elections before the present one, held the positions of President (France) and Prime Minister (both).

The myths spun by the American media are missing quite a lot of things, for example:
-The Social Democrats gained in the last polls prior to the terrorist attacks
-the final result was in last poll's margin of error
-Aznar failed at preventing terrorism,
-Aznar lied to his people and got caught
-Aznar lied to the world community and got caught
-apparently the attacks were executes without any regard to the upcoming elections. The terrorists did, because they were able to - the only interesting thing for them about the date was the relation to 9/11. However now, that the myth about the influenced election is out, they *will* attack elections.



In Spain Zapatero won the General Elections, emerging as new Prime Minister. He did a complete 180 on many foreign policies of Aznar, for example:
-out of Iraq
-Europe more important ally than USA
-EU constitution (left Poland standing alone in the ****)
-no "god" in EU constitution (yup, we have fundies in southern Germany and Italy - Italy even has removed "Evolution" from it's schoolbooks).
And:
-fight against domestic Islamic terrorism (as opposed to ETA only)
-more rights for the regions

In France the Social Democrats won the local elections. With the French state being organized top-down, it will have very little impact on French policies. It was an important opportunity for the French people to Chirac how much they appreciate his policies, but even a Social Democrat would be forced to implement policies close to Chirac's - the money is simply not there.

[cprise]

24. I agree with alcuno, and

... I think a better question is "How socialist are they?" I'm sure they support nationalized industry in certain sectors (utilities, healthcare, etc.).

What I don't get is why a socialist would necessarily be considered an extremist.