International France Removes Prime Minister AGAIN - Seeks Fifth PM in 2 Years as Centrism Suffers Nightmare Period

[Koya]

You are mixing up you values and facts. You cannot deny that Miterrand gave France its socialist turn in 1980. whether that s a good thing or not is another debate. But social programs are financed by public debt.

The thing is I'm careful with the word here because I learned painfully that for a lot of American socialism is automatically equal to communism. They use both words interchangeably and mean the same thing.

While in truth communism is a radical ideology that has proven to be a failure with real world experiments on millions of people, while socialism is a spectrum with a lot of nuances in said spectrum.

A German "Sozialdemokratische" (social-democrat party) or a french "parti socialiste" have absolutely zero thing in common with communism.

They're ingrained in the liberal economic order and don't try to change it. They have nonetheless social values like accessible healthcare and education, retirement pension, refusal to privatize public services like transportation, etc.

Within this framework and if we're giving the same meaning to those words then yes François Mitterrand is absolutely a socialist. Yes it's financed by public debt. And if you want my opinion it is not good but mandatory, up to a certain point when it starts having diminishing return or worse.

But I can't explain that with those nuances on this forum where people think that dying of kidney failure because you weren't rich enough to get a 6 figures transplant is normal and the time to do "you sound poor" jokes.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

The thing is I'm careful with the word here because I learned painfully that for a lot of American socialism is automatically equal to communism. They use both words interchangeably and mean the same thing.

While in truth communism is a radical ideology that has proven to be a failure with real world experiments on millions of people, while socialism is a spectrum with a lot of nuances in said spectrum.

A German "Sozialdemokratische" (social-democrat party) or a french "parti socialiste" have absolutely zero thing in common with communism.

They're ingrained in the liberal economic order and don't try to change it. They have nonetheless social values like accessible healthcare and education, retirement pension, refusal to privatize public services like transportation, etc.

Within this framework and if we're giving the same meaning to those words then yes François Mitterrand is absolutely a socialist. Yes it's financed by public debt. And if you want my opinion it is not good but mandatory, up to a certain point when it starts having diminishing return or worse.

But I can't explain that with those nuances on this forum where people think that dying of kidney failure because you weren't rich enough to get a 6 figures transplant is normal and the time to do "you sound poor" jokes.

Oh of course the PS in France, just like the SPD in Germany is social democratic, meaning a very light, democratic version of socialism. Yes they operate in a free market, however, I disagree that they are as liberal as more liberal parties as for example they typically nationalise in key industries.

Personally I also believe in social programs, free healthcare and in nationalisation. I will never vote for social democrats due to their laxism in terms of security and their chronic immigrationism and my opinion that they pushed the progressist agenda way too far on social issues, but that‘s just my opinion.

 

[ShadowRun]

Lol France is gay

 

[wolffanghameha]

European support to Ukraine is a miniscule expense. Especially to France, which is on the lower end of per capita-donors. Ukraine has zero impact on France's economy. Not even the energy embargo touches them, what with their nuclear plants and all.

France's economy has other issues.

Directly wrecking the economy no, but what about citizen's benefits that governments claim to have no money for, but they find a magic money tree for some other issue that they prioritise more (in this case Ukraine)? It erodes social cohesion if people don't have the resources to engage "normally" with society or see a feasible way to better their lives, and if they feel a lack of fairness in society. That money can be used for education/vocation funding, dwelling-building, social services, health services etc (which are all connected. Eg better children's social services=lowering of ACEs and less adult health and prison spending; better housing costs=more money to invest in one's own skills, business ideas, less mental malaise from finances; maintenance of poverty traps=capable people don't get opportunities so the best or hardest-working person doesn't get the job, creating poorer workplace performance). It unlocks the human capital of the country, which boosts economic productivity - so there's a huge economic and social opportunity cost (which feed into each other) whenever they send 1 million euros to Ukraine instead of allocating it to domestic services.

Not France, but the UK is funding Ukraine's defence and in my city Citizen's Advice (government-funded charity giving advice to help people not be screwed over by landlords, deal with debt, foodbank vouchers, unemployment money, disability money, employee rights, consumer rights) couldn't afford to pay their office rent, so downgraded from mon-fri to 2 days per week running from a local library. I just wrote to my parliamentary representative about this issue yesterday, about whether choosing to underfund the service matches the philosophy of why the service exists and how it creates opportunity cost and economic inefficiency when citiziens get screwed over and have to spend extra to achieve the same material outcome.

How much does a full-time teacher make? A cop? A youth worker? Nurse? Doctor? Competent support worker for refugees or homeless? Social worker? Setting up regulatory bodies to enforce standards? How much to fund an apprenticeship or top up wages to make it viable? They need to be justifying why the euros are going to one thing and not another.