I imagine it would be quite disheartening to be a socialist in europe...given that there are no socialist states in europe.

I very much hope that at least Izquierda Unida will not only come back from the brink, but make its presence known in congress. Ojalá

But I have know idea what your talking baout with France. It looks like the socialists are going to destroy Sarkozy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2012

damian: If you define the U. S. S. R. or the P. R. C. as socialist states then you're right. I, however, don't, and neither do European socialists.

No I just don't think a welfare state is a socialist state.

A socialist state requires a far greater government control over business/people control means of production.

Not just capitalism with social welfare.

Socialists, at least my kind of socialists, support policies that work to guarantee the citizens of their countries basic rights, like transportation, to not be an exploited laborer (which includes ensuring safe work conditions, reasonable work hours, paid holidays, minimum wage), corporate regulation (which includes regulating product control and insuring environmental protection), disaster relief (reimbursement for losses), minority rights, infrastructural competency (quality roads, for instance), life (food, clean water, shelter and healthcare), etc.

They support a government that works in the benefit of the people and strives for each citizen to be treated fairly. Owning businesses is not at all as important a priority as many make it out to be, but basic services like the police, fire department, ambulance corps and probably certain means of transport should be state-owned.

insuring --> ensuring

Then you've co-opted the word socialist. Because that isn't what it means.

Ha ha, no I haven't. I'm a democratic socialist. See the following for a very rough description of the ideology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#Ideology

And the socialist parties of both France and Spain are on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_democratic_parties

I know what democratic socialism is, I strongly identified as one for a extended period of time. Calling it socialism however is a misnomer. Socialism is by its very nature a system that is not Capitalist. A large majority of democratic socialists are fine with continuing to accept the corporations as they are so long as they treat the workers all right.

That's not socialism...its an abuse of the word.

Alright, so let's take a step back: what is capitalism to you? Is it just the existence of corporations?

damian, words derive their meaning from use not the other way around.

Language is fluid and definitions associated with a word change over time. new use does not mean ab use.

No it is not. Capitalism, is (in brief) private ownership of business. Particularly large business.

If you understand the roots of socialism/communism. Then you can understand why democratic socialism is a perversion. Socialism is supposed to be a revolution against capitalism. Not simply a blunting of the societal ills it causes.

@ora: I realize this. However this is like me calling a pig an apple.

You'd call me crazy.

socialism and social democracy basically have the same root words: 'a government of the people'

that's translation is wrong, but you get my point

damian: So you're deriving all socialism from the theories of Marx and Engels?

Not entirely. However he does the best at summing it up.

I'm basically defining socialism as a rejection of capitalism.
Social democracy is not that. While it embraces the collectivist principles that I adore, it frankly isn't a rejection of capitalism.

Collective ownership of all enterprises is a fundamental anarchist concept, but not necessarily a socialist one. But is that how you are defining it?

By your arguments there are no socialists that don't want an identical future to an anarchist one, and that anarchists and socialists only differ in the paths they support.

No its really not, a 'fundamentally' anarchist concept.
It isn't the thing which defines an anarchist. (Which is rejection of authority, and voluntary association.)

Socio-Anarchism though is a thing for sure (Communism actually just no the USSR kind)... and it can coincide with Socialism. However the difference is that socialism isn't about the rejection of authority. It is about using a government to regulate the shift to Communism... or as a permanent form of government to maintain order. aka. moores Utopia.

Socialism is easily defined, supporting government planning and control of the economy over the free market.

All the other BS is fog and mirrors trying to make excuses for the abject failure of any government anywhere to the market.

Tettleton's Chew: Now you certainly are just plain wrong. To name just one example, Japan massively meddled with its economy after the Second World War to become the second largest in the world and nobody calls that Japan socialist.

In fact, you're talking about a system that was only abandoned with the idiotic Washington Consensus of 1989.

JECE, no one called Japan's control of the economy socialist in the 1960's onward.
How completely insane are you?
When has Japan not been socialist?

Tettleton's Chew: Duh, that's my point: no one calls that Japan socialist, but yet it fits your definition to the tee.

Sorry JECE, I don't know what socialist ideology you come from, but Japan has socialist since it emerged from WWII. State control of society and state support of corporations.

Where do you idiots come that have no understanding at all of what socialism is, but instead tried it hide socialism behind some fog screen of verbage.

Substituting government planning in any way for the market is socialist by definition.
Social security is socialist.
Government pensions are socialist.
A minimum wage is socialist.

Please grow a brain and educate yourself JECE.

I'm quite confused by the juxtaposition of Sarkozy and socialism. I hope you realize that he heads the center right party in France. And it seems as though Francois Hollande or Sarkozy will win and not Marine le Pen.

While I know that TC has me blocked and as such won't read a word of this, I write for your benefit JECE.

The definition presented by TC is flawed in that it assumes, that any government control over the economy is a socialist economy.

Unfortunately, he's gotten trapped in the idea Keynes as socialist, when Keynes is as much a capitalist as the next man. He just advocates a less topsy turkey form of capitalism. While a Socialist would request we do away with Capitalism.

Tettleton's Chew: You know what, I actually agree with you. I hate the government too. You should see these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb8qG76L9jE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCRymrsFnPM

damian:
In the anarchism I know, every town governs itself, but it definitely doesn't allow for corporations, feudal as corporate hierarchies are. I don't know that anarchists hate authority so much as they hate hierarchical structures, which they see as what does the ultimate damage.