French Socialist in Mittal Row: We're Just Doing What Obama Does

[FrodosPet]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/50022833

The French politician who said Indian steel company ArcelorMittal should leave the country has told CNBC that his government is only acting like U.S. President Barack Obama.

Industry Minister Arnaud Montebourg, a member of the governing Socialist party, caused controversy last week when he said that the Indian company, which employs close to 20,000 people in France, should leave after it said it would have to close down a factory.

The French government announced on Thursday that it could nationalize the factory in question, with backing from an unnamed businessman.

~ snip ~

Montebourg told CNBC after a meeting with trade unions in Paris: “Barack Obama's nationalized. The Germans are nationalizing. All countries are nationalizing. I've also noticed the British nationalized 6 banks.”

~ snip ~

---------------------------------------------------------

The RWers claim he is. Many of the socialists and others I've been reading here say he isn't because of some of his pro-business statements and actions. Me? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what socialism is, above and beyond "ownership of the means of production by the state or workers' cooperatives".

[freshwest]

1. Give one of our groups a try:

Socialist Progressives (Group)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024

[FrodosPet]

2. I've been scoping that group out a bit

Along with Wikipedia and marxist.org

At its base, capitalism sees easy to understand for me. Buy for a dollar, sell for two. When I was 12, I had a paper route. Buy them from the newspaper company, deliver them to the customers, collect 90 cents a week, pay 65 cents a week per customer. Saved my money, bought a bike, and I could deliver them faster so I could go play basebrawl (I lived in a rough neighborhood and games rarely got past 3 or 4 innings) or go home and listen to my shortwave radio.

But trying to figure out a lot of the different terms and structures of socialism has been a real challenge for me. Anarcho-syndicatilist? What's the difference between a socialist and a social democrat? A Leninist and a Trotskyist? If there are no investors, who provides the resources to start new enterprise?

Forgive the ignorance, but I think that is a HUGE part of the resistance to socialism - most of us don't understand it.

[Starry Messenger]

3. We have enterprises already that are socialistic in nature.

They don't make private profits--public resources that are funded publicly. Public investing in enterprises like scientific discoveries fueled a great deal of the Information Age we are living in now. It could be expanded, and might prevent the contraction of hoarded wealth into just a few hands, like we have now.

Don't get too bogged down by terms. There are two basic paths in socialist thinking and they have to do with the role of government and the state. We don't bite.

[freshwest]

4. You might research the terms The Commons, economies of scale, natural monopolies.

What the Frenchman is not exactly correct in describing, is nationalizing what is considered for the good of the country.

Such as the TVA, the interstate highway system and other projects for the national good. So large that they literally become national security matters, if one includes commerce and industry among those.

Social democracies as they have traditionally been thought of in Europe, are mixed capitalist and socialist. Those things which are considered to be in a gift from nature, essential to life and not proper to be owned by a small group, are nationalized.

Norway has almost everything nationalized, but also private concerns. The essentials of modern life, water, electricity, energy, healthcare, the social safety net, even broadband, were nationalized. The consideration of the health and well-being of everyone is taken into the planning, where in a capitalist, corporatist system, the consideration of the wealth of the owners is paramount. Not the consumers, the workers or the environment. It is disconnected from the effects of wealth extracted. Romney is the ultimate example of this version of capitalism.

When you discussed your paper route this is the version of capitalism, more properly called free enterprise, that people love. The problem is that illusion of the free market, which only works in terms of the profit. It discounts all the other factors in a person being able to engage in such pursuits.

That is just a little bit.. I would have to explain a great many things and post a lot of links to make it understandable. I admit the group I suggested is not always the simplest to understand. The terms don't translate well. I'll try to get back to you later.

[banned from Kos]

5. Bullshit. IIRC this guy is supporting a 75% tax in France

Obama is a real centrist (thankfully).