Mark's Blog

I thought the definition of socialism at the Newfoundland site (listed by google) i.e. heritage.nf.ca/confederation/glossary.html was particularly good. Its definition of socialism includes government ownership, regulation, and social spending. I suspect French socialists would be reasonably comfortable with that definition.

Europe and the US talk about the political right and left differently. In Europe someone on the right is a strong nationalist, a social conservative, and cozy with established wealth. George Bust is a classic Euorpean rightist.

In the US the right is more fragmented, but includes the anti-tax, anti-big government crowd. So in the US it perfectly rational to say Bush is too left wing. He has allowed the federal budget to spiral totally out of control, for example he increased spending on education 30% over the Clinton budget (!) and he instituted a massive new entitlement program (prescription drugs for old people) that nobody knows how to pay for. Bush is a big government big spending sort of guy that democrats could love if they didn't hate him so much.

I think American "liberty" and French "liberte" [accent missing] are very different words. Liberte means rights of citizens recognized and protected by the state. Liberty means rights given by God which must be carefully preserved because the state is always trying to take them away.

"A term covering many belief systems that oppose the concentration of wealth and power that is a natural part of capitalism. Whereas capitalists emphasize freedom for the individual to possess private property, socialists emphasize the well-being of the community. They strive to achieve this through many methods, including public ownership, regulation, and state-sponsored social programs. Socialism has taken on many different forms throughout the world, with varying degrees of success. Some socialists favour a gradual move away from unrestricted capitalism and the maintenance of a democratic society; others favour force to overthrow capitalism and distribute wealth."

You're probably right that French socialists would claim they agree with this definition. If you look at their position objectively, they don't oppose concentration of power any more than any other elected officials do, however.

Concerning the last couple of sentences, those belonging to the PS (Parti Socialiste) do not favor force to overthrow capitalism. It's not clear even the French politicians calling themselves communist favor use of force to overthrow capitalism. Most of the political class agrees global capitalism is inevitable.

It seems both French and US systems share one fundamental feature: Rhetoric and reality need not coincide. If they do coincide, it's an accident, probably an indication that somebody could've gotten away with a bigger lie.

In France, we're protected by the state to the extent that I'm now trying to figure out how to save money so I can continue working in my current job without gradually falling behind and not being able to pay my creditors. In the US, I have the right to carry a gun to protect myself from crack dealers. But as a shareholder in the company where I work, I cannot protect myself from high-level managers who speak about pay for performance, render accomplishing anything worthwhile increasingly difficult, then award themselves lavishly for an ever-flat stock price and increasing losses (when you ignore extraordinary events like $2 billion cash injections and writeoffs).