FAQ
Search
Members
Groups
Register
User Control Panel
Log in to check your private messages.
LoginComments by our members about socialism in other threads suggest that this is a topic that merits further discussion. What does socialism mean to our members in the US, Spain, and other countries? What political parties are considered socialist? How much support do they have? What policies do they espouse, etc.?
Bob Martinez
Socialism
Moderator: Moderators
-
Ken Menendez
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas (formerly from Spelter, WV)
- asturias_and_me:
To understand socialism I guess is to understand the definition of socialism and socialist.
WEBSTER:
Socialism: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state; a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distringuised by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
Socialist: "one advocates or practices socialism; a member of a socialist party or political group."
Applying the word socialism to some of today's issues: medical and social security:
Again using Webster for Socialized Medicine: "medical and hospital servies for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy or taxation."
Social Security per Webster: "the principle or practice or a program of public provision (as through social insurance or assistance) for the economic security and social welfare of the individual and his family; a US government program established in 1935 to include old-age and survivors insurance, contributions to state unemployment insurance and old-age assistance."
How does the SOCIALIST PARTY--USA apply the meaning of socialism to their cause: From their Statement of Principals:
"The Socialist Party strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control--a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home and in the community. Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bvureaucracy. Socialsm is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighbrohoods, homes and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth."
Go to www.sp-usa.org for the Socialist Party-USA
How did Frederick Engels in 1847 apply socialists principals for Marxism:
"Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of muually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole--that is, for the common account, according ot a comon plan, and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual mangement of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilitization of all products according to common agreement--in a word what is called the communal ownersip of goods.."
For more on Engels go to www.marxists.org
From the COMMUNIST PARTY, USA, and its application to society we have their meaning for what they titled "Socialism USA" as authored by the now deceased Gus Hall:
"We Commuists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people. We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American." "What will be the goals of our socialist society?"
"1. A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness;
2. An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
3. Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent."
For more go to: www.cpusa.org
Does anyone see any common trhread between socialism, the Socialist Party--USA and the Communist Party, USA? How does the redistribution of wealth via taxation by the Federal, State, County, School Districts and City governments apply in changing our so-called "capitalist society"? Or does it? Are we slowing being pulled into a socialist society and government? If so, it it going to fast or too slow for you?
Big issues in the USA with demands for socialized medicine (some form); social security benefits; "safety nets" for people with special economic needs and issues; and other social issues to be paid by some government agency from taxes applied by individual wealth levels via the tax tables that apply to a year's earnings, sale of stock for capital gains, dividends, interest on savings, inheritance, sale of home when applied, and so on; and to corporations on earnings after allowable deductions.
What incentive would one have to be productive in a society as described above the various forms of socialism, communism?
In Spain, you now have a government that is socialist. How does it apply to the above views of the two socialist parties in the US---Socialist Party--USA and the Communist Party, USA? Differences? Future?
WEBSTER:
Socialism: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state; a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distringuised by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
Socialist: "one advocates or practices socialism; a member of a socialist party or political group."
Applying the word socialism to some of today's issues: medical and social security:
Again using Webster for Socialized Medicine: "medical and hospital servies for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy or taxation."
Social Security per Webster: "the principle or practice or a program of public provision (as through social insurance or assistance) for the economic security and social welfare of the individual and his family; a US government program established in 1935 to include old-age and survivors insurance, contributions to state unemployment insurance and old-age assistance."
How does the SOCIALIST PARTY--USA apply the meaning of socialism to their cause: From their Statement of Principals:
"The Socialist Party strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control--a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home and in the community. Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bvureaucracy. Socialsm is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighbrohoods, homes and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth."
Go to www.sp-usa.org for the Socialist Party-USA
How did Frederick Engels in 1847 apply socialists principals for Marxism:
"Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of muually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole--that is, for the common account, according ot a comon plan, and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual mangement of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilitization of all products according to common agreement--in a word what is called the communal ownersip of goods.."
For more on Engels go to www.marxists.org
From the COMMUNIST PARTY, USA, and its application to society we have their meaning for what they titled "Socialism USA" as authored by the now deceased Gus Hall:
"We Commuists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people. We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American." "What will be the goals of our socialist society?"
"1. A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness;
2. An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
3. Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent."
For more go to: www.cpusa.org
Does anyone see any common trhread between socialism, the Socialist Party--USA and the Communist Party, USA? How does the redistribution of wealth via taxation by the Federal, State, County, School Districts and City governments apply in changing our so-called "capitalist society"? Or does it? Are we slowing being pulled into a socialist society and government? If so, it it going to fast or too slow for you?
Big issues in the USA with demands for socialized medicine (some form); social security benefits; "safety nets" for people with special economic needs and issues; and other social issues to be paid by some government agency from taxes applied by individual wealth levels via the tax tables that apply to a year's earnings, sale of stock for capital gains, dividends, interest on savings, inheritance, sale of home when applied, and so on; and to corporations on earnings after allowable deductions.
What incentive would one have to be productive in a society as described above the various forms of socialism, communism?
In Spain, you now have a government that is socialist. How does it apply to the above views of the two socialist parties in the US---Socialist Party--USA and the Communist Party, USA? Differences? Future?
In my conversations with Asturians I've gotten a sense that what the dictionary (and our US schooling) says about socialism and communism are very different from what now occurs in the European political parties.
It seems likely that the nature of these parties has necessarily changed with changing circumstances, while our (American) understanding of them is still stuck in the early 1900s.
My limited experience of socialists in the US is that they have a much less practical perspective than socialists in Europe. Contemporary US socialists seem stuck in the early 1900s, too. I'd bet that this is because they have been marginalized by the government and business interests. Asturians might be surprised to know, for example, that if you are a socialist or communist, you can't work for the US government. (I assume that this is still true.) There has long been a paranoia that socialists and communists are treacherous and dangerous. They were our bogeyman before terrorists became an issue.
One person told me that, in part, the parties represent differing views on which (and how much) social services a government should offer. And that in voting you choose the group that most matches your own perspective, but that you're not choosing a capitalist vs. socialist vs. communist economic model. It's much more subtle than that.
I'll be interested in hearing some of our Asturian friends comment on this. Did I understand correctly?
--------------
En mis conversaciones con asturianos me parece que lo que dice el diccionario (y nuestra educación de los E.U.) sobre el socialismo y el comunismo es muy diferente de lo que ahora ocurre en los partidos políticos europeos.
Probablemente el carácter de estos partidos necesariamente ha cambiado con circunstancias que se cambian, mientras nuestro (americano) entendimiento de ellos todavía es pegado a los principios de los años 1900.
Mi experiencia limitada de las socialistas en los EU consiste en que tienen una perspectiva mucho menos práctica que las socialistas en Europa. Los socialistas contemporáneos estadounidenses parecen pegados a los principios de los años 1900, también. Apostaría que es porque se han sido marginados por el gobierno y los intereses de negocio. Los asturianos podrían estar sorprendidos de saber, por ejemplo, que si usted es un socialista o comunista, no puede trabajar para el gobierno de los EU. (Asumo que esto es todavía verdadero.) Hace mucho tiempo que hay una paranoia que los socialistas y comunistas estan traicioneros y peligrosos. Eran nuestro coco antes de que los terroristas se hicieran una cuestión.
Una persona me dijo que, en parte, los partidos representan opiniones que se diferencian sobre cuales (y cuantos) servicios sociales un gobierno debería ofrecer. Y en la votación, se escoge el grupo que concorda con la mayor parte de su propias perspectivas. Pero no se escoge a un modelo económico capitalista contra el socialista contra el comunista. No, es mucho más sutil.
Estaré interesado en oír los comentarios de algunos de nuestros amigos asturianos. ¿Entendí correctamente?
It seems likely that the nature of these parties has necessarily changed with changing circumstances, while our (American) understanding of them is still stuck in the early 1900s.
My limited experience of socialists in the US is that they have a much less practical perspective than socialists in Europe. Contemporary US socialists seem stuck in the early 1900s, too. I'd bet that this is because they have been marginalized by the government and business interests. Asturians might be surprised to know, for example, that if you are a socialist or communist, you can't work for the US government. (I assume that this is still true.) There has long been a paranoia that socialists and communists are treacherous and dangerous. They were our bogeyman before terrorists became an issue.
One person told me that, in part, the parties represent differing views on which (and how much) social services a government should offer. And that in voting you choose the group that most matches your own perspective, but that you're not choosing a capitalist vs. socialist vs. communist economic model. It's much more subtle than that.
I'll be interested in hearing some of our Asturian friends comment on this. Did I understand correctly?
--------------
En mis conversaciones con asturianos me parece que lo que dice el diccionario (y nuestra educación de los E.U.) sobre el socialismo y el comunismo es muy diferente de lo que ahora ocurre en los partidos políticos europeos.
Probablemente el carácter de estos partidos necesariamente ha cambiado con circunstancias que se cambian, mientras nuestro (americano) entendimiento de ellos todavía es pegado a los principios de los años 1900.
Mi experiencia limitada de las socialistas en los EU consiste en que tienen una perspectiva mucho menos práctica que las socialistas en Europa. Los socialistas contemporáneos estadounidenses parecen pegados a los principios de los años 1900, también. Apostaría que es porque se han sido marginados por el gobierno y los intereses de negocio. Los asturianos podrían estar sorprendidos de saber, por ejemplo, que si usted es un socialista o comunista, no puede trabajar para el gobierno de los EU. (Asumo que esto es todavía verdadero.) Hace mucho tiempo que hay una paranoia que los socialistas y comunistas estan traicioneros y peligrosos. Eran nuestro coco antes de que los terroristas se hicieran una cuestión.
Una persona me dijo que, en parte, los partidos representan opiniones que se diferencian sobre cuales (y cuantos) servicios sociales un gobierno debería ofrecer. Y en la votación, se escoge el grupo que concorda con la mayor parte de su propias perspectivas. Pero no se escoge a un modelo económico capitalista contra el socialista contra el comunista. No, es mucho más sutil.
Estaré interesado en oír los comentarios de algunos de nuestros amigos asturianos. ¿Entendí correctamente?
-
Terechu
- Moderator
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:43 am
- Location: GIJON - ASTURIAS
- asturias_and_me:
Ken, I believe that Webster's needs updating! 
Their definition is practically a literal transcription of Marx's theories, which is not wrong in itself, but has little to do with today's Socialism.
No Socialist today would renounce private property or lobby for collective property of all means of production. (I'm not sure if the Kibbuzim of Israel are still operating, but they were a wonderful experiment at true Socialism, which failed for all the obvious reasons).
Today's Socialism is democratic (in fact most people are now Social-democrats) and based on the precept of equal rights for all, so that all citizens - regardless of income - can have free access to schooling and health care, retirement pensions, reasonable housing and job protection. Corporations are allowed to reap benefits, but always respecting basic workers' rights (minimum salary, 4-month maternity leave, 30 days vacation, etc.)
If you look at it unbiased, you'll admit it's the best for all.
Unfortunately, employers will never stop trying to do away with it all.
---------------------------------------------------
Ken, creo que el Webster's necesita ponerse al día!
Su definición es prácticamente una transcripción de las teorías de Marx, lo que no es incorrecto de por sí, pero que tiene poco que ver con el Socialismo actual.
Hoy en día ningún socialista renunciaría a la propiedad privada ni defendería la propiadad colectiva de todos los medios de producción (no sé si seguirán funcionando los Kibbuzim de Israel, pero fueron un experimento maravilloso del Socialismo auténtico, que falló por razones obvias).
El Socialismo de hoy es democrático (de hecho creo que la mayoría se definiría como socialdemócrata) y se basa en el precepto de igualdad de derechos para todos, de manera que todos los ciudadanos - sea cual sea su nivel de ingresos - tenga acceso gratuito a la educación y la sanidad, pensiones de jubilación, vivienda razonable y protección laboral. Las empresas pueden ganar dinero, pero siempre respetando los derechos básicos de los trabajadores (salario mínimo, 4 meses de baja por maternidad, 30 días de vacaciones, etc.).
Si lo miras sin prejuicios, verás que es lo mejor para todos.
Por desgracia, los empresarios nunca cesan en su empeño por acabar con todo ello.
Their definition is practically a literal transcription of Marx's theories, which is not wrong in itself, but has little to do with today's Socialism.
No Socialist today would renounce private property or lobby for collective property of all means of production. (I'm not sure if the Kibbuzim of Israel are still operating, but they were a wonderful experiment at true Socialism, which failed for all the obvious reasons).
Today's Socialism is democratic (in fact most people are now Social-democrats) and based on the precept of equal rights for all, so that all citizens - regardless of income - can have free access to schooling and health care, retirement pensions, reasonable housing and job protection. Corporations are allowed to reap benefits, but always respecting basic workers' rights (minimum salary, 4-month maternity leave, 30 days vacation, etc.)
If you look at it unbiased, you'll admit it's the best for all.
Unfortunately, employers will never stop trying to do away with it all.
---------------------------------------------------
Ken, creo que el Webster's necesita ponerse al día!
Su definición es prácticamente una transcripción de las teorías de Marx, lo que no es incorrecto de por sí, pero que tiene poco que ver con el Socialismo actual.
Hoy en día ningún socialista renunciaría a la propiedad privada ni defendería la propiadad colectiva de todos los medios de producción (no sé si seguirán funcionando los Kibbuzim de Israel, pero fueron un experimento maravilloso del Socialismo auténtico, que falló por razones obvias).
El Socialismo de hoy es democrático (de hecho creo que la mayoría se definiría como socialdemócrata) y se basa en el precepto de igualdad de derechos para todos, de manera que todos los ciudadanos - sea cual sea su nivel de ingresos - tenga acceso gratuito a la educación y la sanidad, pensiones de jubilación, vivienda razonable y protección laboral. Las empresas pueden ganar dinero, pero siempre respetando los derechos básicos de los trabajadores (salario mínimo, 4 meses de baja por maternidad, 30 días de vacaciones, etc.).
Si lo miras sin prejuicios, verás que es lo mejor para todos.
Por desgracia, los empresarios nunca cesan en su empeño por acabar con todo ello.
-
argayu
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:09 am
- Location: Mieres del Camín
- asturias_and_me:
- Contact:
El Socialismu, asina con mayúscules, nun cambeó un puntu dende la
dómina de Marx. Los comunistes, tamién somos socialistes, porque naguamos pola sociedá socialista, enantes de llegar a la sociedá comunista. Coses estremaes son les llínees polítiques d'anguañu nos, pa mi, mal nomaoss partíos socialistes, que nin siquier lleguen a ser socialdemócrates, tal como se talantaba fae 50 años.
El Socialismo, así con mayúsculas, no cambió un punto desde la época de Marx. Los comunistas, también somos socialistas, porque aspiramos a la sociedad socialista, antes de llegar a la sociedad comunista. Cosas distintas son les líneas políticas actuales en los, para mi, mal llamados partidos socialistas, que ni siquiera llegan a ser socialdemócratas, tal como se emtendía hace 50 años.
--------------------------------------------------
Transl. Terechu
Socialism, spelled with a capital S, hasn't changed a bit since the days of Marx. We communists are socialists, too, because we aim at a socialist society, before reaching a communist one. The current political guidelines of what I believe are wrongly called socialist parties, which don't even come close to being social-democratic as defined 50 years ago, are an entirely different matter.
dómina de Marx. Los comunistes, tamién somos socialistes, porque naguamos pola sociedá socialista, enantes de llegar a la sociedá comunista. Coses estremaes son les llínees polítiques d'anguañu nos, pa mi, mal nomaoss partíos socialistes, que nin siquier lleguen a ser socialdemócrates, tal como se talantaba fae 50 años.
El Socialismo, así con mayúsculas, no cambió un punto desde la época de Marx. Los comunistas, también somos socialistas, porque aspiramos a la sociedad socialista, antes de llegar a la sociedad comunista. Cosas distintas son les líneas políticas actuales en los, para mi, mal llamados partidos socialistas, que ni siquiera llegan a ser socialdemócratas, tal como se emtendía hace 50 años.
--------------------------------------------------
Transl. Terechu
Socialism, spelled with a capital S, hasn't changed a bit since the days of Marx. We communists are socialists, too, because we aim at a socialist society, before reaching a communist one. The current political guidelines of what I believe are wrongly called socialist parties, which don't even come close to being social-democratic as defined 50 years ago, are an entirely different matter.
-
Gil Andrés Sopeña
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Oviedo
- asturias_and_me:
Lamento no saber ingles para leer a Bob y a Ken Menéndez, pero por lo que leo de Art , en EU no estan interesados en un socialismo, y menos en el socialismo que se hace en Europa, que aunque en su "doctrina" sea un poco atrasado, en la practica y en el " dia a dia" se podria parecer mucho , a la forma de actuar de los Democratas de Estados Unidos , si salvamos asuntos , como Seguridad social para todos, y pensiones y poco más. Lo que mas me sosprende es que un socialista no pueda trabajar para el Gobierno?
¿ Puede tener algun trabajo publico?
¿ Pueden ser profesores?
Por favor que alguien me conteste , pues me he quedado muy confundido.
Yo creo que el primer socialista fue Jesucristo, aunque luego trasformaron su idea en algo capitalista.
Terechu creo que dio una buena "pincelada" de lo que es el socialismo y Nuestro Estado del Bienestar, y lo que tranquiliza saber que todo trabajador de este pais tiene toda la asistencia sanitaria gratis , incluido un trasplante de corazón si lo necesitas o un trasplante de higado etec,etc. por poner unos ejemplos. O tener la enseñanza gratis , o llegar a los 65 años poder jubilarte y disponer de una paga y de medicinas gratis. Creo que el socialismo hoy no representa un peligro para nadie, otra cosa son esos llamados socialismos que se mantienen en 1900 , caso China , Cuba, etec etec, que mas que socialismos , son Dictaduras , puras y duras , bueno y alguna otra que aparece como democratica.
Un salugo Asturianos del Mundo ,y gracias por ser unidos
---------------
translated by Art
I regret not knowing English so I could read Bob and Ken Menéndez' [posts], but from what I read of Art's, in the US people aren't interested in socialism, and even less so in socialism as it's done in Europe. Although in the "doctrine" [of European socialism] is a bit out-of-date, in its day-to-day practice it would seem to be very much like the way the Democrats of the United States are--if we exclude a few matters, such as social Security for all, and pensions, but few few other [differences]. What surprises me most is that a Socialist could not work for the Government?
Can [a socialist] have any kind of public work?
Can they be teachers?
that someone will please answer me, since this leaves me very confused.
I believe that the first Socialist was Jesus Christ, though his ideas were later transformed in something capitalist.
Terechu, I believe, gave a good overview of what our [European] socialism is and our social programs ["welfare" in a very broad sense]. It is very reassuring to know that each working person in this country receives complete health care for free, including a heart transplant if you need it or a liver transplant, etc., etc., to give a few examples. Or [the right to] to have a free education. Or upon reaching the age of 65 to be able to retire and receive your pay check and free medicines. I believe that the socialism of today does not represent a danger to anybody. Now, those so-called socialisms that are kept [stuck] in the 1900s--for example, China, Cuba, etc. etc.--are another thing. Rather than being socialistic, they are dictatorships, pure and simple. Well, they're also something more, in that they look democratic [-- but they're not].
Greetings to all Asturians of the World, and thank you for coming together
¿ Puede tener algun trabajo publico?
¿ Pueden ser profesores?
Por favor que alguien me conteste , pues me he quedado muy confundido.
Yo creo que el primer socialista fue Jesucristo, aunque luego trasformaron su idea en algo capitalista.
Terechu creo que dio una buena "pincelada" de lo que es el socialismo y Nuestro Estado del Bienestar, y lo que tranquiliza saber que todo trabajador de este pais tiene toda la asistencia sanitaria gratis , incluido un trasplante de corazón si lo necesitas o un trasplante de higado etec,etc. por poner unos ejemplos. O tener la enseñanza gratis , o llegar a los 65 años poder jubilarte y disponer de una paga y de medicinas gratis. Creo que el socialismo hoy no representa un peligro para nadie, otra cosa son esos llamados socialismos que se mantienen en 1900 , caso China , Cuba, etec etec, que mas que socialismos , son Dictaduras , puras y duras , bueno y alguna otra que aparece como democratica.
Un salugo Asturianos del Mundo ,y gracias por ser unidos
---------------
translated by Art
I regret not knowing English so I could read Bob and Ken Menéndez' [posts], but from what I read of Art's, in the US people aren't interested in socialism, and even less so in socialism as it's done in Europe. Although in the "doctrine" [of European socialism] is a bit out-of-date, in its day-to-day practice it would seem to be very much like the way the Democrats of the United States are--if we exclude a few matters, such as social Security for all, and pensions, but few few other [differences]. What surprises me most is that a Socialist could not work for the Government?
Can [a socialist] have any kind of public work?
Can they be teachers?
that someone will please answer me, since this leaves me very confused.
I believe that the first Socialist was Jesus Christ, though his ideas were later transformed in something capitalist.
Terechu, I believe, gave a good overview of what our [European] socialism is and our social programs ["welfare" in a very broad sense]. It is very reassuring to know that each working person in this country receives complete health care for free, including a heart transplant if you need it or a liver transplant, etc., etc., to give a few examples. Or [the right to] to have a free education. Or upon reaching the age of 65 to be able to retire and receive your pay check and free medicines. I believe that the socialism of today does not represent a danger to anybody. Now, those so-called socialisms that are kept [stuck] in the 1900s--for example, China, Cuba, etc. etc.--are another thing. Rather than being socialistic, they are dictatorships, pure and simple. Well, they're also something more, in that they look democratic [-- but they're not].
Greetings to all Asturians of the World, and thank you for coming together
In the US, partly because of the dominance of capitalists (business interests), it is not common to be socialist and it would be terribly dysfunctional to be communist. In the 1980s I knew about one communist and he seemed to be very quiet about his activities to avoid trouble.
But there are socialists and communists in the US, they're just very small and not at all influential today.
Plus, as Agustín noted, we have currently a two party system and it's very difficult for any other parties to get much support because people don't want to "throw their vote away." So other parties, like the Green Party, Lyndon Larouche's and Ross Perot's independent parties, the Natural Law Party (the guru Maharishi's group), etc. are not very strong. Many of these groups have seem to be fringe groups and are probably a little wacky.
I would imagine that teachers could be socialists, but public school teachers are hired by local school districts, not by the federal or state governments.
It is the federal government that is required to ask about the political affiliation of job . When I applied they never asked my references if I got to work on time or was a good worker. All they wanted to know was whether I was going to try to overthrown the government. This always struck me as very odd, a throwback to McCarthyism of the 1950s. I don't know what they do today, but I can imagine the questions being taken more seriously.
Yes, I think Giles is right that the US Democrats have a lot in common with Europe's Social Democrats. The difference is that the US has a fear of socialism, so it's not possible to call anything you want to support "socialism." In fact, "socialism" is used by conservatives as a very effective means of arguing against proposed policies. Liberals just don't use the word. It's sort of taboo.
Similarly, it's often impossible to speak positively about "welfare." I think this is why our conservative forum members can't imagine that their social security checks are "welfare." Of course, they are, because most retirees receive much more back than they ever paid into the program. It's a great program, but it's still a government "handout."
The average person will say that they don't want to receive "welfare," but they'll accept a Social Security check or a payment from the government for flood relief or a check for survivors of those who died in the 9-11 attacks. This is one of the American neuroses.
----------------
En EU, en parte debido al predominio de las capitalistas (intereses de negocio), no es común ser socialista y sería terriblemente disfuncional ser comunista. En los años 1980 sabía de un comunista y pareció ser muy callado con sus actividades para evitar los problemas.
Pero hay socialistas y comunistas en los EU. Es que son muy pocos y nada influyentes hoy.
Más, como Agustín notó, tenemos actualmente un sistema de dos partidos y es muy difícil para cualquier otro partido de conseguir mucho apoyo porque la gente no quiere "tirar su voto al basura". Entonces, otros partidos, como el Partido Verde, los partidos independientes de Lyndon Larouche y Ross Perot, el Partido de la Ley Natural (el grupo del gurú Maharishi), etc. no son muy fuerte. Muchos de estos grupos parecen ser grupos marginales y son probablemente un poco chiflado.
Me imaginaría que los profesores podrían ser socialistas, pero profesores de las escuelas públicas son contratados por distritos escolares locales, no por el gobierno federal o estatal.
Es el gobierno federal que requiere que se pregunta sobre la afiliación política para consequir un trabajo. Cuando me apliqué nunca preguntaron a mis referencias de si llegue al trabajo a tiempo o si esté muy trabajador. Todo que quisieron saber era si vaya a intentar a derrocado el gobierno. Esto siempre me parecía muy raro, un retroceso al McCarthyism de los años 1950. No sé que hace el gobierno hoy, pero puedo imaginarme las preguntas son considerados más en serio.
Sí, pienso que Gil tiene razón que los Demócratas de los EU tienen mucho en común con los Demócratas Sociales de Europa. La diferencia es aquellos EU tiene un miedo de socialismo, entonces no es posible llamar algo que usted quiere apoyar "el socialismo". De hecho, "el socialismo" es usado por conservadores como un medio muy eficaz de ponerse en contra de la política propuesta. Los liberales solamente(justo) no usan la palabra. Esto es el tipo del tabú.
Asimismo es a menudo imposible hablar positivamente sobre "el bienestar". Pienso que es por esta razón que nuestros miembros de foro conservadores no pueden imaginarse que sus talones de seguridad social [para jubilados] son un forma de "bienestar" [asistencia social]. Desde luego, es asistencia social, porque la mayor parte de los jubilados reciben mucho más que pagaron al programa. Esto es un gran programa, pero es todavía una "dádiva" del gobierno.
Las americanos ordinarios dirán que no quieren recibir "el bienestar", pero ellos aceptarán un pago de Seguridad Social o un pago del gobierno para el alivio de inundación o una pago para los sobrevivientes de los que murieron en los 9-11 ataques. Esto es una de la neurosis americana.
But there are socialists and communists in the US, they're just very small and not at all influential today.
Plus, as Agustín noted, we have currently a two party system and it's very difficult for any other parties to get much support because people don't want to "throw their vote away." So other parties, like the Green Party, Lyndon Larouche's and Ross Perot's independent parties, the Natural Law Party (the guru Maharishi's group), etc. are not very strong. Many of these groups have seem to be fringe groups and are probably a little wacky.
I would imagine that teachers could be socialists, but public school teachers are hired by local school districts, not by the federal or state governments.
It is the federal government that is required to ask about the political affiliation of job . When I applied they never asked my references if I got to work on time or was a good worker. All they wanted to know was whether I was going to try to overthrown the government. This always struck me as very odd, a throwback to McCarthyism of the 1950s. I don't know what they do today, but I can imagine the questions being taken more seriously.
Yes, I think Giles is right that the US Democrats have a lot in common with Europe's Social Democrats. The difference is that the US has a fear of socialism, so it's not possible to call anything you want to support "socialism." In fact, "socialism" is used by conservatives as a very effective means of arguing against proposed policies. Liberals just don't use the word. It's sort of taboo.
Similarly, it's often impossible to speak positively about "welfare." I think this is why our conservative forum members can't imagine that their social security checks are "welfare." Of course, they are, because most retirees receive much more back than they ever paid into the program. It's a great program, but it's still a government "handout."
The average person will say that they don't want to receive "welfare," but they'll accept a Social Security check or a payment from the government for flood relief or a check for survivors of those who died in the 9-11 attacks. This is one of the American neuroses.
----------------
En EU, en parte debido al predominio de las capitalistas (intereses de negocio), no es común ser socialista y sería terriblemente disfuncional ser comunista. En los años 1980 sabía de un comunista y pareció ser muy callado con sus actividades para evitar los problemas.
Pero hay socialistas y comunistas en los EU. Es que son muy pocos y nada influyentes hoy.
Más, como Agustín notó, tenemos actualmente un sistema de dos partidos y es muy difícil para cualquier otro partido de conseguir mucho apoyo porque la gente no quiere "tirar su voto al basura". Entonces, otros partidos, como el Partido Verde, los partidos independientes de Lyndon Larouche y Ross Perot, el Partido de la Ley Natural (el grupo del gurú Maharishi), etc. no son muy fuerte. Muchos de estos grupos parecen ser grupos marginales y son probablemente un poco chiflado.
Me imaginaría que los profesores podrían ser socialistas, pero profesores de las escuelas públicas son contratados por distritos escolares locales, no por el gobierno federal o estatal.
Es el gobierno federal que requiere que se pregunta sobre la afiliación política para consequir un trabajo. Cuando me apliqué nunca preguntaron a mis referencias de si llegue al trabajo a tiempo o si esté muy trabajador. Todo que quisieron saber era si vaya a intentar a derrocado el gobierno. Esto siempre me parecía muy raro, un retroceso al McCarthyism de los años 1950. No sé que hace el gobierno hoy, pero puedo imaginarme las preguntas son considerados más en serio.
Sí, pienso que Gil tiene razón que los Demócratas de los EU tienen mucho en común con los Demócratas Sociales de Europa. La diferencia es aquellos EU tiene un miedo de socialismo, entonces no es posible llamar algo que usted quiere apoyar "el socialismo". De hecho, "el socialismo" es usado por conservadores como un medio muy eficaz de ponerse en contra de la política propuesta. Los liberales solamente(justo) no usan la palabra. Esto es el tipo del tabú.
Asimismo es a menudo imposible hablar positivamente sobre "el bienestar". Pienso que es por esta razón que nuestros miembros de foro conservadores no pueden imaginarse que sus talones de seguridad social [para jubilados] son un forma de "bienestar" [asistencia social]. Desde luego, es asistencia social, porque la mayor parte de los jubilados reciben mucho más que pagaron al programa. Esto es un gran programa, pero es todavía una "dádiva" del gobierno.
Las americanos ordinarios dirán que no quieren recibir "el bienestar", pero ellos aceptarán un pago de Seguridad Social o un pago del gobierno para el alivio de inundación o una pago para los sobrevivientes de los que murieron en los 9-11 ataques. Esto es una de la neurosis americana.
-
Terechu
- Moderator
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:43 am
- Location: GIJON - ASTURIAS
- asturias_and_me:
Argayu, creo que el Socialismo, así con mayúscula, se ha puesto al día, al menos en Europa. Y creo que de momento es la manera más perfecta de organizar una sociedad.
Las cosas han cambiado desde el siglo pasado, ya no hay un "Lumpenproletariat", un proletariado harapiento, porque incluso los mendigos tienen teléfono móvil y comen pasteles. (Lo de comer pasteles lo digo, porque en mi infancia un pastel o un helado te lo daban sólo los domingos).
Claro que existe una parte de la clase trabajadora que se ve negra para llegar a fin de mes, pero su nivel de vida no tiene ni comparación con el de nuestros abuelos.
Además los que nacieron en los 50 ya pudieron estudiar bachillerato gratis y algunos hasta una carrera con beca. Quiero decir con esto que todo el mundo tuvo su oportunidad.
Qué quieres que te diga, la mayoría tenemos lo poco que tenemos gracias a nuestro esfuerzo y sacrificio. Ya sé que suena muy carca, pero yo tuve que trabajar para tener algo y por supuesto no estoy dispuesta a compartir nada con aquellos que se iban de discoteca cuando yo estudiaba para los exámenes.
Es básicamente como la fábula de la hormiga y la cigarra. En teoría siempre odié a las estúpidas hormigas por tacañas, pero ahora que me toca estoy con ellas: "No cantabas mientras yo trabajaba? Pues ahora jódete y baila!"
De los que cayeron entre las rendijas y no pueden valerse ya se encarga el Estado.
------------------------------------------------------------
Argayu, I believe that Socialism, with a capital S, has been updated, at least in Europe. And I believe it is the most perfect way to organize Society.
Things have changed since the past century, there's no longer a "Lumpenproletariat", a proletariat in rags, because even the beggars have cell phones and eat cakes. (I'm mentioning the cakes, because during my childhood you only got cakes or ice-cream on Sundays).
Of course part of the working class has problems making ends meet, but their standard of living has nothing to do with our grandparents'.
Besides, those of us born in the 50's had free schooling throughout, some even went to the university with scholarships.
What can I say, most of us have what little we have thanks to our own efforts and sacrifices. I know it sounds very square, but I had to work for what I have and of course I'm not going to share anything with those who went to the disco when I was studying for my exams.
It's basically like the fable of the ant and the cicada, Theoretically I always hated the stupid stingy ants, but now that it's my turn, I'm on their side: "Didn't you sing all summer while I was working? Well, now go ahead and dance!"
And for those who fell between the cracks and cannot take care of themselves, the State already provides for.
Terechu
Las cosas han cambiado desde el siglo pasado, ya no hay un "Lumpenproletariat", un proletariado harapiento, porque incluso los mendigos tienen teléfono móvil y comen pasteles. (Lo de comer pasteles lo digo, porque en mi infancia un pastel o un helado te lo daban sólo los domingos).
Claro que existe una parte de la clase trabajadora que se ve negra para llegar a fin de mes, pero su nivel de vida no tiene ni comparación con el de nuestros abuelos.
Además los que nacieron en los 50 ya pudieron estudiar bachillerato gratis y algunos hasta una carrera con beca. Quiero decir con esto que todo el mundo tuvo su oportunidad.
Qué quieres que te diga, la mayoría tenemos lo poco que tenemos gracias a nuestro esfuerzo y sacrificio. Ya sé que suena muy carca, pero yo tuve que trabajar para tener algo y por supuesto no estoy dispuesta a compartir nada con aquellos que se iban de discoteca cuando yo estudiaba para los exámenes.
Es básicamente como la fábula de la hormiga y la cigarra. En teoría siempre odié a las estúpidas hormigas por tacañas, pero ahora que me toca estoy con ellas: "No cantabas mientras yo trabajaba? Pues ahora jódete y baila!"
De los que cayeron entre las rendijas y no pueden valerse ya se encarga el Estado.
------------------------------------------------------------
Argayu, I believe that Socialism, with a capital S, has been updated, at least in Europe. And I believe it is the most perfect way to organize Society.
Things have changed since the past century, there's no longer a "Lumpenproletariat", a proletariat in rags, because even the beggars have cell phones and eat cakes. (I'm mentioning the cakes, because during my childhood you only got cakes or ice-cream on Sundays).
Of course part of the working class has problems making ends meet, but their standard of living has nothing to do with our grandparents'.
Besides, those of us born in the 50's had free schooling throughout, some even went to the university with scholarships.
What can I say, most of us have what little we have thanks to our own efforts and sacrifices. I know it sounds very square, but I had to work for what I have and of course I'm not going to share anything with those who went to the disco when I was studying for my exams.
It's basically like the fable of the ant and the cicada, Theoretically I always hated the stupid stingy ants, but now that it's my turn, I'm on their side: "Didn't you sing all summer while I was working? Well, now go ahead and dance!"
And for those who fell between the cracks and cannot take care of themselves, the State already provides for.
Terechu
-
Barbara Alonso Novellino
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:54 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York
- asturias_and_me:
Art you said:
"Our conservative form members can't imagine that their social security checks are 'welfare'.
A Government "handout"
How insulting! In this forum we are supposed to be careful and not insult anyone....you have INSULTED me and everyone who receives SS. Of course, I know that you won't see it that way...
In another form I was upset about what was said about President Bush...well it was explained that he is not a member of our forum...well, I am and you INSULTED me and all that receive SS..
Question...does anyone in your family receive SS...how do you feel about that?
We talked about this in previous posts in another forum. My Social Security check is NOT A HANDOUT...I paid into it for more than 40 years. Wait my friend...when you start receiving SS checks let me see how you will view it. Lets see if you think its welfare then.
"Our conservative form members can't imagine that their social security checks are 'welfare'.
A Government "handout"
How insulting! In this forum we are supposed to be careful and not insult anyone....you have INSULTED me and everyone who receives SS. Of course, I know that you won't see it that way...
In another form I was upset about what was said about President Bush...well it was explained that he is not a member of our forum...well, I am and you INSULTED me and all that receive SS..
Question...does anyone in your family receive SS...how do you feel about that?
We talked about this in previous posts in another forum. My Social Security check is NOT A HANDOUT...I paid into it for more than 40 years. Wait my friend...when you start receiving SS checks let me see how you will view it. Lets see if you think its welfare then.
-
Bob
- Moderator
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:54 am
- Location: Connecticut and Massachusetts
- asturias_and_me:
Barbara,
My wife is in the process of applying for Social Security (early retirement), and we both requested statements of our social Security benefits. What became immediately clear is that Social Security benefits are not directly tied to lifetime income, average income over so many years, or total amount that one has paid into the system.
The immediate and most obvious explanation is that there is a cap on the income on which one has to pay Social Security tax; that the tax is imposed only on earned income, not on investment income; and that Congress can and does change the rules whenever it feels a need to do so. In essence, people who earn above a certain level, or who have investment income, do not pay Social Security tax on ther entire income. Whether this is desirable or not, I leave to our members to debate, and to compare with the situation in Spain and other nations.
What is clear is that first beneficiaries of Social Security were paid (and are being paid) far more than they contributed. Personally, I have no problem with this.
I agree that it is not fair to characterize this as a handout, and that it would be insulting to do so, but I am not certain how to best characterize it. It is not a handout. It is not quite insurance. It is not exactly socialism. It is, in my view, certainly desirable.
Bob Martinez
My wife is in the process of applying for Social Security (early retirement), and we both requested statements of our social Security benefits. What became immediately clear is that Social Security benefits are not directly tied to lifetime income, average income over so many years, or total amount that one has paid into the system.
The immediate and most obvious explanation is that there is a cap on the income on which one has to pay Social Security tax; that the tax is imposed only on earned income, not on investment income; and that Congress can and does change the rules whenever it feels a need to do so. In essence, people who earn above a certain level, or who have investment income, do not pay Social Security tax on ther entire income. Whether this is desirable or not, I leave to our members to debate, and to compare with the situation in Spain and other nations.
What is clear is that first beneficiaries of Social Security were paid (and are being paid) far more than they contributed. Personally, I have no problem with this.
I agree that it is not fair to characterize this as a handout, and that it would be insulting to do so, but I am not certain how to best characterize it. It is not a handout. It is not quite insurance. It is not exactly socialism. It is, in my view, certainly desirable.
Bob Martinez
-
Barbara Alonso Novellino
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:54 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York
- asturias_and_me:
Bob,
I know...
When my husband and I were working there was as time during the year when SS deductions stopped. I realize that people who are lucky enough to live to a ripe old age...do receive more than they paid in.
I still don't appreciate it being called "welfare" no matter how its spinned, insurance is a better choice of words...
Barbara Alonso Novellino
I know...
When my husband and I were working there was as time during the year when SS deductions stopped. I realize that people who are lucky enough to live to a ripe old age...do receive more than they paid in.
I still don't appreciate it being called "welfare" no matter how its spinned, insurance is a better choice of words...
Barbara Alonso Novellino
-
Bob
- Moderator
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:54 am
- Location: Connecticut and Massachusetts
- asturias_and_me:
Barbara,
The concept of insurance in relation to retirement raises another issue, at least in the US, and I would welcome comments about how it is done in Spain and other countries. The issue is that insurance companies sell both life insurance (whole life, term, etc), which is supposedly predicated upon risks calculated by actuaries, and retirement annuities (whose payouts are also calculated on the basis of calculations by actuaries).
The problem is that the insurance companies discriminate against those who are at risk of an earlier death when selling life insurance (i. e., higher premiums or even no coverage at all), but penalize those at risk of an earlier death by not giving them larger monthly payouts if they purchase an annuity. Essentially, the less healthy subsidize the benefits of the more healthy. This seems unfair, and--perhaps--something that should be regulated by the government, since no US based insurance carrier seems to offer a retirement annuity product that competes on the basis of actual risk.
I would be very curious to learn how insurance policies and retirement annuities are handled and regulated in other countries.
Bob Martinez
The concept of insurance in relation to retirement raises another issue, at least in the US, and I would welcome comments about how it is done in Spain and other countries. The issue is that insurance companies sell both life insurance (whole life, term, etc), which is supposedly predicated upon risks calculated by actuaries, and retirement annuities (whose payouts are also calculated on the basis of calculations by actuaries).
The problem is that the insurance companies discriminate against those who are at risk of an earlier death when selling life insurance (i. e., higher premiums or even no coverage at all), but penalize those at risk of an earlier death by not giving them larger monthly payouts if they purchase an annuity. Essentially, the less healthy subsidize the benefits of the more healthy. This seems unfair, and--perhaps--something that should be regulated by the government, since no US based insurance carrier seems to offer a retirement annuity product that competes on the basis of actual risk.
I would be very curious to learn how insurance policies and retirement annuities are handled and regulated in other countries.
Bob Martinez
-
Terechu
- Moderator
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:43 am
- Location: GIJON - ASTURIAS
- asturias_and_me:
Argayu, qué me vas a contar a mí de pérdida de derechos, que me amenazaron con echarme de la empresa donde llevaba trabajando 12 años porque me negué a poner cafés a un jefecillo de otro departamento? En una empresa donde nunca se habían puesto cafés, con la incorporación de secretarias y jefecillos jóvenes, se pusieron en plan Hollywood y lamento decir que las secres no sólo se despepitaban por ponerlo, sino que hubiesen puesto cofias y mandilones si se lo hubiesen pedido. Los menores de 35 años están renunciando a todo desde el principio y haciendo que a los demás se nos empiece a considerar un lastre.argayu wrote:Terechu.
La plusvalía sigui existiendo, lo mesmo que la explotación del home per l'home. Los medíos de produción siguen en manes d'unos pocos. Les conquistes sociales de los años 50, 60 y 70 tan esapareciendo día a día.
En la última huelga sólo participó la mitad de la plantilla (en la anterior hace 12 años participó el 85%, inclusive la mayoría de los ingenieros). Cuántos jóvenes hay afiliados a los sindicatos? Ni Dios! Da asco verles echar horas extra sin que se lo pida nadie y dejarnos en mal lugar a los que cumplimos el horario.
En lo que a mí respecta, hay mucho esquirol mental entre las nuevas generaciones, que con tal de que el jefe les dé una palmadina en la espalda ya se consideran pagados. Así nos luce el pelo.
Terechu
-
Gil Andrés Sopeña
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Oviedo
- asturias_and_me:
Art:
Tienes razón , en cuanto que los estados y los Paises, para una misma o similar formula politica , tienen nombres muy distintos , y eso pasa con el socialismo. Por lo que leo , en EU asimilan socialismo y comunismo a Dictadura comunista o socialista y a la no existencia de propiedad privada, pero eso no es cierto y no se sostiene pero en Europa consideramos al socialismo una ideologuia, o pensamiento politico muy cerca del centro por lo tanto con sólo matrices que le diferencian de la derecha.
Y en cuanto a la economia, ya sea nacional o internacional, y a la propiedad privada, los socialistas Europeos de diferencian poco de los republicanos de EU y casi nada de los Democratas de EU.
En europa, ningun Socialista o comunista entenderia que no esistiese, propiedad privada o multinacionales.
Para entendernos, lo que sucede en Cuba, en Europa nunca se podra lo vera nadie, eso aca en España no lo llamamos socialistas, eso es una dictadura, pura y dura.
--------------
translated by Art
Art:
You're right, in that all of the states and countries have very different names for the same or similar political formula, and that's what happens with socialism. From what I read, in the US they equate socialism and communism with communist or socialistic dictatorship, and to the elimination [non-existence] of private property. But that is not true and is not supported [born out by reality]. In Europe we consider socialism to be an ideology, or political thought, very close to the center [of the political spectrum] and therefore it differs from the right only in subtle nuances.
And as for the economy, whether it's national or international, and as for private property, the European Socialists are not very different from the US Republicans and almost not [at all different] from the US Democrats.
In Europe, no Socialist or Communist would beleve [understand] that private property or multinationals shouldn't exist.
So that you'll understand, what occurred in Cuba, would never happen in Europe. No one would put up with it [Art: the previous idea may be wrong]. Here in Spain we do not call them Socialists; this is a dictatorship, pure and simple.
Tienes razón , en cuanto que los estados y los Paises, para una misma o similar formula politica , tienen nombres muy distintos , y eso pasa con el socialismo. Por lo que leo , en EU asimilan socialismo y comunismo a Dictadura comunista o socialista y a la no existencia de propiedad privada, pero eso no es cierto y no se sostiene pero en Europa consideramos al socialismo una ideologuia, o pensamiento politico muy cerca del centro por lo tanto con sólo matrices que le diferencian de la derecha.
Y en cuanto a la economia, ya sea nacional o internacional, y a la propiedad privada, los socialistas Europeos de diferencian poco de los republicanos de EU y casi nada de los Democratas de EU.
En europa, ningun Socialista o comunista entenderia que no esistiese, propiedad privada o multinacionales.
Para entendernos, lo que sucede en Cuba, en Europa nunca se podra lo vera nadie, eso aca en España no lo llamamos socialistas, eso es una dictadura, pura y dura.
--------------
translated by Art
Art:
You're right, in that all of the states and countries have very different names for the same or similar political formula, and that's what happens with socialism. From what I read, in the US they equate socialism and communism with communist or socialistic dictatorship, and to the elimination [non-existence] of private property. But that is not true and is not supported [born out by reality]. In Europe we consider socialism to be an ideology, or political thought, very close to the center [of the political spectrum] and therefore it differs from the right only in subtle nuances.
And as for the economy, whether it's national or international, and as for private property, the European Socialists are not very different from the US Republicans and almost not [at all different] from the US Democrats.
In Europe, no Socialist or Communist would beleve [understand] that private property or multinationals shouldn't exist.
So that you'll understand, what occurred in Cuba, would never happen in Europe. No one would put up with it [Art: the previous idea may be wrong]. Here in Spain we do not call them Socialists; this is a dictatorship, pure and simple.