Socialists lose, conservatives win big in Spanish elections

[Murazor]

Meanwhile, in Spain...

Spain election: Rajoy's Popular Party declares victory

Conservatives in Spain are celebrating a landslide victory in today's national elections.
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

What's the matter with Spain?
Metro symbol of economic crisis
Q&A: Spanish general election

Spain's centre-right Popular Party (PP) has won a resounding victory in a parliamentary election dominated by the country's deep debt crisis.

With almost all the votes counted, the PP, led by Mariano Rajoy, is assured of a clear majority in the lower chamber.

The Socialist Party, which has governed Spain since 2004, has admitted defeat.

Mr Rajoy, who is expected to tackle the country's debts amid slow growth and high unemployment, said he was aware of the "magnitude of the task ahead".

He told supporters there would be "no miracle" to restore Spain to financial health, and that the country must unite to win back respect in Europe.
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
image of Sarah Rainsford Sarah Rainsford BBC News, Madrid

The Popular Party had already erected the platform for its victory speeches at its Madrid headquarters by mid-morning. Hours before the polls closed, workmen unfurled a huge, new banner that said "Gracias". Somewhat premature, it was quickly removed.

But there was no doubt who would win this race. Left-wing voters have punished the governing Socialist party: it is pretty tough asking to be re-elected when almost five million people are unemployed. So the mood over at PSOE (Socialist) headquarters today was distinctly subdued.

Here, though, the music is pumping through loud speakers. The crowds have gathered - many wrapped in the Spanish national flag. The PP and its supporters are beginning their party.

"Forty-six million Spaniards are going to wage a battle against the crisis," said the 56-year-old PP leader.

The PP won about 44% of the votes and the Socialists 29% in Sunday's election, according to near-complete official results.

The PP is expected to take about 186 of the 350 seats in the lower house.

As the results were announced, jubilant, flag-waving supporters danced outside party headquarters in central Madrid.

Socialist Party spokesman Jose Blanco congratulated the PP on its victory.

The BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Madrid says the right is headed for its biggest win since the end of the Franco dictatorship in 1975.

Parliament is expected to meet next month to confirm Mr Rajoy as the new prime minister.
'Sacrifices ahead'

The new government will have little time to show results and people are bracing themselves for a new wave of spending cuts, our correspondent adds.

Over the past week, borrowing rates have risen to the 7% level which is regarded as unsustainable. Unemployment stands at five million.

PP leader Mariano Rajoy: "We can only go forward if we all go forward together"

Miguel Arias, the Popular Party's campaign co-ordinator, said Spain was "going to make all the sacrifices".

"We have been living as a very rich country," he told BBC News.

"People are used to a very high level of public services and it takes time to them to acknowledge the realisation that we now are a poor country, that we have lots of debts and in order to pay them back we must reduce public expenditure and then we must recover the confidence of the markets."

Outgoing Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was not standing again at this election.

His successor as party leader, Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba, has accused Mr Rajoy of planning severe cuts to health and education.

"Spain is at a historic crossroads," he told reporters in Madrid.

Correspondents say many are angry with the Socialists for allowing the economy to deteriorate and then for introducing tough austerity measures.

Spain's is the third Eurozone government in as many weeks whose fall has been attributed to the debt crisis.

The socialists in Greece and Silvio Berlusconi's Italian conservatives have also been swept from power.

Earlier this year, the governments of debt-stricken Ireland and Portugal also fell.

So the PP, our national conservative party, has won a relative super-majority. Good for them, even if I dread that no good will come out of it in the mid-term. It remains to be seen what effect, if any, the defeat will have on the socialists. And it probably is completely irrelevant when considering the bigger picture, because the markets have been squeezing for a while already and will presumably continue to do so in the near future.

[Starglider]

Greece, Italy and Spain are all failures of socialism; entrenched socialist governments with cultures heavily dependent on subsidy and welfare, in Italy's case with plenty of outright communism. Whining from the left that this is actually caused by 'neoliberalism' and somehow the conservatives fault is utter delusion. Banks may have exploited the inherent flaws of socialism to make more money, but the idea that the solution to Europe's issues is even more socialism is ludicrous.

[Murazor]

Greece, Italy and Spain are all failures of socialism; entrenched socialist governments with cultures heavily dependent on subsidy and welfare, in Italy's case with plenty of outright communism. Whining from the left that this is actually caused by 'neoliberalism' and somehow the conservatives fault is utter delusion. Banks may have exploited the inherent flaws of socialism to make more money, but the idea that the solution to Europe's issues is even more socialism is ludicrous.

Though not in agreement, I am intrigued and somewhat interested by this position. May I ask you to elaborate or offer some exposition of the salient points upon which this opinion is based?

[K. A. Pital]

Greece, Italy and Spain are all failures of socialism; entrenched socialist governments with cultures heavily dependent on subsidy and welfare, in Italy's case with plenty of outright communism. Whining from the left that this is actually caused by 'neoliberalism' and somehow the conservatives fault is utter delusion. Banks may have exploited the inherent flaws of socialism to make more money, but the idea that the solution to Europe's issues is even more socialism is ludicrous.

Socialism with private property? You must be really stretching it, Starglider. Though they are definetely welfare-state failures, welfare state is a specific anticommunist mechanism which seeks to improve capitalism so as to conceal its more ugly and ruthless darwinian features and placate the populace. Revolution-preventing care facilities, if you will.

You can't really call it "socialism", unless you're willing to say that welfare-state capitalism is socialism. That's bullshit. Only US conservatives operate under such a redefinition of terms.

P.S. Nationalization of failed banks actually worked in Sweden. I know I'm being a tad silly, but yes, sometimes "more socialism" (I guess that means more state-monopolistic capitalism, but whatever) can be the answer. Not a good one for the private property owners, but an answer nonetheless. On the other hand, taking on private debt without measure can't work period.

[Lord Zentei]

So, it's not socialism to have state-run welfare programmes because there's still private property around? That seems like a highly black and white argument, Stas. The fact is that left wing parties have been consistently the ones to advocate more welfare and not less, so characterizing welfare as some kind of conspiracy to "conceal [capitalism's] more ugly and ruthless darwinian features and placate the populace" against the interests of socialism seems to me rather facetious.

[Bakustra]

So, it's not socialism to have state-run welfare programmes because there's still private property around? That seems like a highly black and white argument, Stas. The fact is that left wing parties have been consistently the ones to advocate more welfare and not less, so characterizing welfare as some kind of conspiracy to "conceal [capitalism's] more ugly and ruthless darwinian features and placate the populace" against the interests of socialism seems to me rather facetious.

One of the conditions for socialism is the abolition of private property. If a party isn't working towards that end, I'm not really sure that you can call it socialist unless you're using the American definition. And a large number of "socialist" parties in Europe (e.g UK Labor, Parti Socialiste, the SPD, the Italian Democratic Party) are heavily Third Way-Social Democrat and thus are, at best, ambivalently socialist. And welfare programs can exist outside of the socialist context- this is known as welfare capitalism, economically speaking. The majority of centre and right-wing parties of Europe are not opposed to the welfare state, but we can hardly call them socialists!

Stas also isn't talking about welfare, he's talking about Third Way Social Democracy, and welfare capitalism in general, which are inarguably "middle-of-the-road" between capitalism and socialism, and whose adherents are frank about its purpose of ameliorating the conditions of capitalism. But Third Way Social Democracy was originally developed in the 1990s in order to incorporate deregulation, globalization, and all the children of neoliberal economic ideology into the left, so I think that it's not unfair to classify it as measures to conceal the gruesome side of capitalism as a whole, and especially neoliberal capitalism (globalization, exploitation, deregulation) through the adoption of left-wing elements such as the welfare state.

[Thanas]

The national welfare state in Europe was introduced first by one Otto von Bismarck precisely to combat socialism. Other nations followed suit. Stas is completely correct in that argument, at least where the historical perspective is concerned.

[Lord Zentei]

One of the conditions for socialism is the abolition of private property. If a party isn't working towards that end, I'm not really sure that you can call it socialist unless you're using the American definition. And a large number of "socialist" parties in Europe (e.g UK Labor, Parti Socialiste, the SPD, the Italian Democratic Party) are heavily Third Way-Social Democrat and thus are, at best, ambivalently socialist. And welfare programs can exist outside of the socialist context- this is known as welfare capitalism, economically speaking. The majority of centre and right-wing parties of Europe are not opposed to the welfare state, but we can hardly call them socialists!

Insofar as, for example, a state run medical sector implies that there is a state-run enterprise which would otherwise be a for-profit private enterprise, then yes, it is indeed socialism. It seems pretty perverse to claim that you need to abolish private ownership in other sectors of the economy for some specific sector to count as being run on socialist lines.

[Bakustra]

One of the conditions for socialism is the abolition of private property. If a party isn't working towards that end, I'm not really sure that you can call it socialist unless you're using the American definition. And a large number of "socialist" parties in Europe (e.g UK Labor, Parti Socialiste, the SPD, the Italian Democratic Party) are heavily Third Way-Social Democrat and thus are, at best, ambivalently socialist. And welfare programs can exist outside of the socialist context- this is known as welfare capitalism, economically speaking. The majority of centre and right-wing parties of Europe are not opposed to the welfare state, but we can hardly call them socialists!

Insofar as, for example, a state run medical sector implies that there is a state-run enterprise which would otherwise be a for-profit private enterprise, then yes, it is indeed socialism. It seems pretty perverse to claim that you need to abolish private ownership in other sectors of the economy for some specific sector to count as being run on socialist lines.

Why break it down to sector-by-sector? That sort of reductionism and definition leads to the conclusion that there are no capitalist states and there have never been, and indeed every organized state has been socialist, because some portion of the economy is state-run: the military, the bureaucracy, etc. If we start arbitrarily declaring that some sectors aren't socialist when they're state-run, where exactly do we draw the line? Far better for these purposes, namely countering Starglider's assertions, to look at the state as a whole and conclude whether it is or is not socialist, then look at the political makeup and conclude whether or not socialism is a major factor. When we look at Europe, we conclude that no European state is socialist and European socialist/social democratic parties are mostly Third Way and do not advocate establishing socialism.

[Lord Zentei]

Why break it down to sector-by-sector? That sort of reductionism and definition leads to the conclusion that there are no capitalist states and there have never been, and indeed every organized state has been socialist, because some portion of the economy is state-run: the military, the bureaucracy, etc.

What are you talking about? Who says that there have been no capitalist states? I do not require that all sectors in an economy be capitalist in order for the "capitalist" label to be applied, why do you require the same for socialism? It is entirely accurate to speak of a specific sector of an economy as "socialist" even though there are other sectors in the same economy which are not socialistic, and even though most of the economy is not socialistic. Hence phrases like "socialized medicine". Capitalism vs socialism is not a black/white pigeonhole scheme, but a sliding scale.

If we start arbitrarily declaring that some sectors aren't socialist when they're state-run, where exactly do we draw the line?

Bakustra, what are you talking about? My position was quite the opposite - namely that you DO accept that certain sectors are socialist precisely because they are state-run.

Far better for these purposes, namely countering Starglider's assertions, to look at the state as a whole and conclude whether it is or is not socialist, then look at the political makeup and conclude whether or not socialism is a major factor. When we look at Europe, we conclude that no European state is socialist and European socialist/social democratic parties are mostly Third Way and do not advocate establishing socialism.

WTF? Just a moment ago you (erroneously) criticized me for using a definition which in your view would exclude most states of being defined as "capitalistic", now you're concluding that it is better to use a definition that precludes any modern European state from being defined as socialistic?

[Bakustra]

Why break it down to sector-by-sector? That sort of reductionism and definition leads to the conclusion that there are no capitalist states and there have never been, and indeed every organized state has been socialist, because some portion of the economy is state-run: the military, the bureaucracy, etc.

What are you talking about? Who says that there have been no capitalist states? I do not require that all sectors in an economy be capitalist in order for the "capitalist" label to be applied, why do you require the same for socialism? It is entirely accurate to speak of a specific sector of an economy as "socialist" even though there are other sectors in the same economy which are not socialistic, and even though most of the economy is not socialistic. Hence phrases like "socialized medicine". Capitalism vs socialism is not a black/white pigeonhole scheme, but a sliding scale.

If we start arbitrarily declaring that some sectors aren't socialist when they're state-run, where exactly do we draw the line?

Bakustra, what are you talking about? My position was quite the opposite - namely that you DO accept that certain sectors are socialist precisely because they are state-run.

Far better for these purposes, namely countering Starglider's assertions, to look at the state as a whole and conclude whether it is or is not socialist, then look at the political makeup and conclude whether or not socialism is a major factor. When we look at Europe, we conclude that no European state is socialist and European socialist/social democratic parties are mostly Third Way and do not advocate establishing socialism.

WTF? Just a moment ago you (erroneously) criticized me for using a definition which in your view would exclude most states of being defined as "capitalistic", now you're concluding that it is better to use a definition that precludes any modern European state from being defined as socialistic?

Capitalism is defined by the existence of private ownership of capital. Socialism is defined by the nonexistence of private ownership of capital. While different sectors may or may not be socialized, in order for a state to be socialist it has to lack private capital, and for a party to be socialist it has to advocate a lack of private ownership of capital. Mixed-market economies are still fundamentally capitalist in nature, because capital is allowed in private hands. I suppose you could call mixed-market states "socialistic" but this is confusing and created the American view of welfare programs as being socialism. If you want to create more Stargliders who believe that Spain, Greece, and Italy are socialist and Italy is highly communist, then go ahead, but I prefer the clarity of clearly distinguishing two ideologies defined by their opposition to one another.

To sum things up, yes, there are no socialist states in Europe besides Belarus, because socialism requires that no capital be held privately. Capitalism does not have the requirement of no capital being held publicly, so, no, they're not equivalencies on a sliding scale and states don't become socialist if 50%+ of their economy is state-controlled, because of the definition of socialism as has been developed by actual socialists.

[Lord Zentei]

I'll deal with your last paragraph first, since that contains the crux of this whole deal.

To sum things up, yes, there are no socialist states in Europe besides Belarus, because socialism requires that no capital be held privately. Capitalism does not have the requirement of no capital being held publicly, so, no, they're not equivalencies on a sliding scale and states don't become socialist if 50%+ of their economy is state-controlled, because of the definition of socialism as has been developed by actual socialists.

And that's bullshit. Capitalism describes an economic model, which relies on private ownership of capital (amongst other things). Public ownership of capital is not capitalistic. You can of course have capitalism in a country even if there is still public ownership of resources, but that doesn't mean that the sectors which are publicly owned qualify as proper elements in capitalism per se. Just as there are no "pure" socialist states in Europe, neither are there any "pure" capitalistic ones either.

Capitalism is defined by the existence of private ownership of capital. Socialism is defined by the nonexistence of private ownership of capital. While different sectors may or may not be socialized, in order for a state to be socialist it has to lack private capital, and for a party to be socialist it has to advocate a lack of private ownership of capital. Mixed-market economies are still fundamentally capitalist in nature, because capital is allowed in private hands.

That's a double standard. If capitalism is defined by the existence of private ownership of capital, then a state-run sector of the economy is not capitalistic. And by your standard for socialist parties being required to demand a (universal) lack of private ownership of capital, that would require that pro-capitalist parties being required to advocate a universal lack of state-run sectors of the economy.

I suppose you could call mixed-market states "socialistic" but this is confusing and created the American view of welfare programs as being socialism.

Apply that to your own characterization of mixed economies as being "capitalistic". Funnily enough, the position of the American right as using a "one drop rule" for decrying an economy as socialistic is just as easily implied to your own declaration that mixed-market economies are not only "capitalistic" but explicitly "not socialistic". The reality is that we have both socialism and capitalism (or at least corporatism) within just about all modern economies. In fact, I've seen people claim with a straight face that modern economies are NOT capitalistic at all, since they have socialized elements. But there's a difference between saying that they're not capitalistic and saying that they are (partly) socialistic.

As an aside, if any legitimate case can be made for the claim that modern western economies are not capitalistic, it would be the preferential treatment certain corporations and financial institutions receive at the hands of the government (leading to corporatism), not that there are socialized elements in the economy.

If you want to create more Stargliders who believe that Spain, Greece, and Italy are socialist and Italy is highly communist, then go ahead, but I prefer the clarity of clearly distinguishing two ideologies defined by their opposition to one another.

Actually, I get the impression that you want to be able to declare that anything that isn't pure socialism cannot be described as socialistic, even when it has elements of such. If an economy were run with 99% of capital being held publicly, but a tiny 1% being privatized, would you still hold that to be a "capitalistic" society? Seriously?

As for Italy being "communist", that's of course bullshit, as any communistic elements overall are negligible (except for some isolated communes, presumably).

[K. A. Pital]

The "99-1%" state-to-private ratio is a strawman. Basically some of the WARPAC nations (PRL, for example) didn't have such ratios. Too bad I don't have enough time to participate.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd argue that what matters is whether the "commanding heights" of the economy are public or private- those sectors of the economy that have relatively more influence on the rest of the system.

It doesn't really matter so much whether a private soft-drink bottling company exists and owns its own means of production, or if there are private restaurant chains. State-run soft drink companies won't kill capitalism; private-run ones won't kill socialism. It does matter who owns the banks. If banking is state-run, that gives the state a lot of power over all other sectors of the private economy. If banking is privatized, the state does not have that same level of power.

So you might well have a distinctly 'socialist' economy in which much of the nation's wealth is privately owned on sufferance, so long as the state doesn't decide to nationalize it, while reserving the power and right to do so at any time... or a distinctly 'capitalist' economy in which theoretically state-run ventures are so dependent on private contractors and companies that they couldn't function without the private sector and wind up becoming captured subsidiaries and auxiliaries of the private sector.

[Lord Zentei]

The "99-1%" state-to-private ratio is a strawman. Basically some of the WARPAC nations (PRL, for example) didn't have such ratios. Too bad I don't have enough time to participate.

It's not a strawman, nor is it relevant that WARPAC nations. It was an illustration by Reductio ad Absurdum of the absurdity of requiring that NO capital be in private hands for a the use of the "socialist" label to be legitimate.

[Zixinus]

Just to step aside the whole "what is socialism" thing, I'd like to ask a possibly stupid question: what caused the implosion of the Spanish economy (specifically) and what does this victory mean? Any Spanish people care to comment?

[Murazor]

what caused the implosion of the Spanish economy (specifically)

Any number of reasons, but salient points include a mind-bogglingly massive real estate bubble, very high levels of corruption in the regions of the Mediterranean arc (both in the local and regional levels), distinct lack of entrepreneurs worthy of the name, lack of investment to restart our rather tattered industrial sector, ineffective unions and, as of late, a rather bloated public sector.

and what does this victory mean? Any Spanish people care to comment?

It is my opinion that we'll see plenty of scaremongering against the regionalists/nationalists of Catalonia and the Basque Country (despite ETA being gone now) and campaigns of defamation to bring to heel the public sector workers who are likely to see a dreadful worsening of their work conditions, while trying to keep people distracted as we bend over and prepare for the European Union to start dictating our terms of surrender.

Also, I'd bet that the main airports, ports and the national lottery are as good as privatized.

[Bakustra]

*snip*

Rather than repeat myself three or four times to deal with your dissection, let me put it this way- socialism and capitalism cannot be treated as opposite ends on a sliding scale for practical purposes. Socialism is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and to the transition of capital into the hands of the public. Socialism is incompatible, by its goals and definitions with private ownership of capital. Anything or anyone which advocates private ownership of capital is not really a socialist- they are advocating another ideology of some kind, usually third-way social democracy. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are mixed-market economies, but they are not socialist.

Now, let me clarify- by public control, what is generally meant is either that the state owns the capital, or that the workers themselves own the capital. So "individual" ownership of capital can occur under socialism, but nobody who does not use the capital for production can have a share in the ownership of it. This is just for clarity's sake, because I don't want you to labor under misapprehensions.

Now, as to your reductio ad absurdum argument, I guess you've got me there- if an absurdly small proportion of capital is in private hands, it's easier to call it socialist than to qualify in most cases. However, that's really only academic- even the "socialistic" countries of Europe have much, much, less than 50% of the economy socialized. And there is such a thing as "state capitalism" which can elegantly describe situations where large portions of capital are state-controlled but private ownership of capital is still possible. So what say you, then? Is it worth it to be able to expound upon how Norway is socialist? (I never said anything about "socialistic" being anything other than possibly confusing, so whatever.)

[Zed]

*snip*

Rather than repeat myself three or four times to deal with your dissection, let me put it this way- socialism and capitalism cannot be treated as opposite ends on a sliding scale for practical purposes. Socialism is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and to the transition of capital into the hands of the public. Socialism is incompatible, by its goals and definitions with private ownership of capital. Anything or anyone which advocates private ownership of capital is not really a socialist- they are advocating another ideology of some kind, usually third-way social democracy. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are mixed-market economies, but they are not socialist.

Defining socialism as narrowly as you define it here is absurd. Plenty of political parties identify as socialist without advocating the abolishment of private ownership of capital. Why should your standard invalidate their self-identification?

[Lord Zentei]

snip

Again, to require such an absolute definition of Socialism is just as bizarre as free-market radicals decrying even the slightest amount of socialized medicine (for example) as being anti-capitalist. There is nothing in the definition of capitalism that permits public capital to exist within capitalism itself per se. Nonetheless, you don't seem to have a problem with calling most modern economies capitalistic.

As an aside, socialist sectors and capitalist sectors of the economy are what they are regardless of how far their more uncompromising proponents have progressed in bringing their respective models to all other sectors.

[Bakustra]

Defining socialism as narrowly as you define it here is absurd. Plenty of political parties identify as socialist without advocating the abolishment of private ownership of capital. Why should your standard invalidate their self-identification?

Hey cool I just started a party dedicated to replacing the current structure of society with a system of individual worker-owned cooperatives that compete with one another in a market framework I'm gonna call it the Capitalist Party of Capitalism. Guess it's capitalist, because I called it that! If you protest, your standards are invalidating its self-identification!

Furthermore, most of those "socialist" parties, like New Labor in the UK and Parti Socialist in France, are explicitly Third Way in their identification (at the top) and have rejected socialism as an end-goal, preferring a perpetual welfare capitalist system. Others, classical social democrats and the like, advocate gradual transformation of society into socialism but still advocate an end to the capitalist system.

snip

Again, to require such an absolute definition of Socialism is just as bizarre as free-market radicals decrying even the slightest amount of socialized medicine (for example) as being anti-capitalist. There is nothing in the definition of capitalism that permits public capital to exist within capitalism itself per se. Nonetheless, you don't seem to have a problem with calling most modern economies capitalistic.

As an aside, socialist sectors and capitalist sectors of the economy are what they are regardless of how far their more uncompromising proponents have progressed in bringing their respective models to all other sectors.

There is a massive fucking difference between "nothing that explicitly permits" (which is expressly wrong: state capitalism is recognized to exist by a whole bunch of people) and "explicitly forbids." They are not interchangeable even if you treat them as such. Are you really going to say, that, for example, Norway is socialist as opposed to being a mixed-market economy?

[Zed]

Defining socialism as narrowly as you define it here is absurd. Plenty of political parties identify as socialist without advocating the abolishment of private ownership of capital. Why should your standard invalidate their self-identification?

Hey cool I just started a party dedicated to replacing the current structure of society with a system of individual worker-owned cooperatives that compete with one another in a market framework I'm gonna call it the Capitalist Party of Capitalism. Guess it's capitalist, because I called it that! If you protest, your standards are invalidating its self-identification!

Furthermore, most of those "socialist" parties, like New Labor in the UK and Parti Socialist in France, are explicitly Third Way in their identification (at the top) and have rejected socialism as an end-goal, preferring a perpetual welfare capitalist system. Others, classical social democrats and the like, advocate gradual transformation of society into socialism but still advocate an end to the capitalist system.

These parties do not 'reject socialism as an end-goal': they reject socialism as you narrowly define it as an end-goal. These parties still identify as socialist, and there is no reason whatsoever to deny them the label other than some Marxist purism. I can point at the Party of European Socialists, the Socialist Party Different (Belgium), the Socialist Party (Belgium), the Bulgarian Socialist Party, the Socialist Party (France), the Panhellenic Socialist Movement, the Hungarian Socialist Party, the Italian Socialist Party, the Luxembourg Socialist Workers' Party, the Socialist Party (Portugal), the Spanish Socialist Worker's Party, the Socialist Party of Albania, the Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro and the Party of Socialists and Democrats. All of these parties identify as socialists, but I'll wager that you'll find very few of them who want to abolish private ownership of capital.

[Simon_Jester]

Defining socialism as narrowly as you define it here is absurd. Plenty of political parties identify as socialist without advocating the abolishment of private ownership of capital. Why should your standard invalidate their self-identification?

Hey cool I just started a party dedicated to replacing the current structure of society with a system of individual worker-owned cooperatives that compete with one another in a market framework I'm gonna call it the Capitalist Party of Capitalism. Guess it's capitalist, because I called it that! If you protest, your standards are invalidating its self-identification!

Bakustra, the problem here is that these parties and ideas you call non-socialist are widespread, widely accepted among many countries, and long-established. This is not some random clown making up a new political party with a random name for the sake of trying to prove a point; this is a big chunk of the political system of the Western world we're talking about.

If enough people consistently use a word to mean a certain thing for a long enough time, when does the word start actually meaning what people think it means?

Is it possible for everyone to be wrong about what a word means? For 90% of the population to be wrong? 75%? 50%? Where's the dividing line? At what point does it stop making sense for you to bicker over the semantics and pick fights about whether the way a hundred million people use a word is wrong, rather than talking about more pressing questions?

[Bakustra]

Party of European Socialists:

The Party of European Socialists (PES) brings together the Socialist, Social Democratic and Labour Parties of the European Union (EU). There are 33 full member parties from the 27 EU member States and Norway. In addition, there are twelve associate and five observer parties.

PES aims include:

* the strengthening of the socialist and social democratic movement in the Union and throughout Europe;
* the development of close working relationships between the national parties, the national parliamentary groups, the Parliamentary Group of the Socialists & Democrates, PES Women, ECOSY, and other socialist and social democratic organisations;
* the definition of common policies for the European Union; and
* the adoption of a common manifesto for elections to the European Parliament.

It is explicitly an umbrella organization incorporating Social Democratic parties, and so is the PGSD. But hey I guess that socialism and capitalism are completely compatible so that we can make your argument meaningful. The fact that this completely fucking invalidates the entire existence of third-way ideologies is no matter, we've got to make sure that Scandinavia is socialist or whatever.

PS: You don't have to be a Marxist in order to say that socialism is inherently opposed to ownership of capital. All you have to be is aware of what useful means in terms of definitions.

Defining socialism as narrowly as you define it here is absurd. Plenty of political parties identify as socialist without advocating the abolishment of private ownership of capital. Why should your standard invalidate their self-identification?

Hey cool I just started a party dedicated to replacing the current structure of society with a system of individual worker-owned cooperatives that compete with one another in a market framework I'm gonna call it the Capitalist Party of Capitalism. Guess it's capitalist, because I called it that! If you protest, your standards are invalidating its self-identification!

Bakustra, the problem here is that these parties and ideas you call non-socialist are widespread, widely accepted among many countries, and long-established. This is not some random clown making up a new political party with a random name for the sake of trying to prove a point; this is a big chunk of the political system of the Western world we're talking about.

If enough people consistently use a word to mean a certain thing for a long enough time, when does the word start actually meaning what people think it means?

Is it possible for everyone to be wrong about what a word means? For 90% of the population to be wrong? 75%? 50%? Where's the dividing line? At what point does it stop making sense for you to bicker over the semantics and pick fights about whether the way a hundred million people use a word is wrong, rather than talking about more pressing questions?

Simon, go fuck a pig. Imagine that I copy-pasted this enough to match the sheer volume of concern-trolling insults you slung at me, and then we can move onto "more pressing questions".

Now, the term "social democrat" has been adopted to incorporate these ideologies that incorporate aspects of capitalism and socialism together. Why shouldn't we use it instead of broadening the definition of socialism just so we can say that socialism and capitalism are compatible? Because accuracy is a matter of consensus? Simon, if people started calling every lepton electrons, then eventually this would become the accepted term, but then new names would have to be found so that electrons and tau particles and muons and their neutrinos could be distinguished from one another again. And if you're going to make it so that the American definition of socialism is the only one, you need something to distinguish anti-capitalist ideologies from the former social-democratic ideologies that are now all socialist because Americans are too cowed by propaganda to distinguish between ideologies and because capitalists wish to dilute socialism to the point of death. Well, vivan los oberos, and good luck on the neologism you'd have to create to distinguish the ideologies.

Also, nowhere near everyone is wrong about the definition of socialism. Stop appealing to silent majorities you fucker, and think further about how this applies to the sciences.

[Lord Zentei]

There is a massive fucking difference between "nothing that explicitly permits" (which is expressly wrong: state capitalism is recognized to exist by a whole bunch of people) and "explicitly forbids." They are not interchangeable even if you treat them as such.

Insofar as the term "state capitalism" was coined to illustrate the potential of state socialism to become exploitative to the same extent that capitalism was, and later as a label for a system with socialized financial sector and heavy regulation but with private ownership of capital, this argument of yours doesn't do much to refute my position. More to the point, you're splitting linguistic hairs; capitalism is understood in modern discourse to imply private ownership of capital resources.

Are you really going to say, that, for example, Norway is socialist as opposed to being a mixed-market economy?

Just wow. Are you trolling? Or are you just ignoring what I said?