“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate

[Florida Man]

As I said above, what about South Korea and Hong Kong? Perhaps we are confusing correlation and causation.

More exceptions than the rule. Hong Kong was already a major trading market for thousands of years. South Korea literally only exists because of US intervention of the Korean peninsula for the purpose of defeating the North. So to keep that balance of power, it was in US interests to support the south, which eventually led to the conditions for their economy to grow. It didn’t just happen out of nowhere.

 

[Florida Man]

But socialism has never persisted under democracy as someone gets elected who doesn't believe in it and sells off state assets. If that's a necessary condition I don't think you'll ever get socialism.

It’s kind of hard to accomplish that if your democratically elected leaders who are trying to do so are getting assassinated along with the many other supporters of that system. Also hard to do that if your participation in the world economy is severely limited by capitalist nations who sanction you to hell.

 

[Fiskey]

More exceptions than the rule. Hong Kong was already a major trading market for thousands of years. South Korea literally only exists because of US intervention of the Korean peninsula for the purpose of defeating the North. So to keep that balance of power, it was in US interests to support the south, which eventually led to the conditions for their economy to grow. It didn’t just happen out of nowhere.

If you're just going to reject evidence to the contrary it's a difficult debate as we run out of countries. Every country has a history that you can point at which gives them certain advantages and certain disadvantages, but to say South Korea and Japan haven't benefitted hugely from capitalism would be disingenuous.

What about post war Germany and Japan? Incredible success stories by counties that have been anti war for the past 70 years. Or was that down to the US as well?

 

[Sweet Square]

I've posted this before but it's worth putting on here again. The government doing things isn't socialism.

James Connolly -

State Monopoly versus Socialism

One of the most significant signs of our times is the readiness with which our struggling middle class turns to schemes of State or Municipal ownership and control, for relief from the economic pressure under which it is struggling. Thus we find in England demands for the nationalisation of the telephone system, for the extension of municipal enterprise in the use of electricity, for the extension of the parcel system in the Post Office, for the nationalisation of railways and canals. In Ireland we have our middle class reformers demanding state help for agriculture, state purchase of lands, arterial draining, state construction of docks, piers and harbours, state aid for the fishing industry, state control of the relations between agricultural tenant and landlord, and also nationalisation of railways and canals. There is a certain section of Socialists, chiefly in England, who never tire of hailing all such demands for state activity as a sign of the growth of the Socialist spirit among the middle class, and therefore worthy of all the support the working-class democracy can give. In some degree such a view seems justifiable. The fact that large sections of the capitalist class join in demanding the intervention of the State in industry is a sure sign that they, at least, have lost the overweening belief in the all-sufficiency of private enterprise which characterised their class a generation ago; and that they have been forced to recognise the fact that there are a multitude of things in which the ‘brain’, ‘self-reliance’, and ‘personal responsibility’ of the capitalist are entirely unnecessary. To argue that, since in such enterprises the private property-holder is dispensed with, therefore he can be dispensed with in all other forms of industrial activity, is logical enough and we really fail to see in what manner the advocates of capitalist society can continue to clamour for such state ownership as that alluded to – ownership in which the private capitalist is seen to be superfluous, and yet continue to argue that in all other forms of industry the private capitalist is indispensable. For it must be remembered that every function of a useful character performed by the State or Municipality to-day was at one time performed by private individuals for profit, and in conformity with the then generally accepted belief that it could not be satisfactorily performed except by private individuals.

But all this notwithstanding, we would, without undue desire to carp or cavil, point out that to call such demands ‘Socialistic’ is in the highest degree misleading. Socialism properly implies above all things the co-operative control by the workers of the machinery of production; without this co-operative control the public ownership by the State is not Socialism – it is only State capitalism. The demands of the middle-class reformers, from the Railway Reform League down, are simply plans to facilitate the business transactions of the capitalist class. State Telephones – to cheapen messages in the interest of the middle class who are the principal users of the telephone system; State Railways – to cheapen carriage of goods in the interest of the middle-class trader; State-construction of piers, docks, etc. – in the interest of the middle-class merchant; in fact every scheme now advanced in which the help of the State is invoked is a scheme to lighten the burden of the capitalist – trader, manufacturer, or farmer. Were they all in working order to-morrow the change would not necessarily benefit the working class; we would still have in our state industries, as in the Post Office to-day, the same unfair classification of salaries, and the same despotic rule of an irresponsible head. Those who worked most and hardest would still get the least remuneration, and the rank and file would still be deprived of all voice in the ordering of their industry, just the same as in all private enterprises.

Therefore, we repeat, state ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism – if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials – but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism.

Schemes of state and municipal ownership, if unaccompanied by this co-operative principle, are but schemes for the perfectioning of the mechanism of capitalist government-schemes to make the capitalist regime respectable and efficient for the purposes of the capitalist; in the second place they represent the class-conscious instinct of the business man who feels that capitalist should not prey upon capitalist, while all may unite to prey upon the workers. The chief immediate sufferers from private ownership of railways, canals, and telephones are the middle class shop-keeping element, and their resentment at the tariffs imposed is but the capitalist political expression of the old adage that “dog should not eat dog.”

It will thus be seen that an immense gulf separates the ‘nationalising’ proposals of the middle class from the ‘socialising’ demands of the revolutionary working class. The first proposes to endow a Class State – repository of the political power of the Capitalist Class – with certain powers and functions to be administered in the common interest of the possessing class; the second proposes to subvert the Class State and replace it with the Socialist State, representing organised society – the Socialist Republic. To the cry of the middle class reformers, “make this or that the property of the government,” we reply, “yes, in proportion as the workers are ready to make the government their property.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1901/evangel/stmonsoc.htm

 

[Fiskey]

It’s kind of hard to accomplish that if your democratically elected leaders who are trying to do so are getting assassinated along with the many other supporters of that system. Also hard to do that if your participation in the world economy is severely limited by capitalist nations who sanction you to hell.

France and Great Britain have both elected socialist parties with no such threat, and have been subsequently voted out because of poor performance.

There are arguments to be had about loads of countries around the world, but if American imperialism is blamed for every failure there's not much you can say.

 

[Florida Man]

If you're just going to reject evidence to the contrary it's a difficult debate as we run out of countries. Every country has a history that you can point at which gives them certain advantages and certain disadvantages, but to say South Korea and Japan haven't benefitted hugely from capitalism would be disingenuous.

What about post war Germany and Japan? Incredible success stories by counties that have been anti war for the past 70 years. Or was that down to the US as well?

I haven’t said they didn’t benefit from capitalism so you’re already putting words into my mouth, and on top of trying to argue that monarchies can be socialist. I literally said exception to the rule in my first sentence and provided some context on why they are exceptions. I can do the same for Germany and a lot of Europe — Marshall Plan. Japan had the US occupy it and invested much resources to jump start that nation on the condition they don’t build a military. Again, exceptions to the rule. You can’t say that for most of the other countries. Enough with the whataboutisms.

 

[Fiskey]

I've posted this before but it's worth putting on here again. The government doing things isn't socialism.

I find these definitions quite bland because we get into ideal worlds. It would be a like a believer in capitalism saying capitalism only exists when humans are seeking the best for one another and companies will compete in good faith against each other.

Politics is about the achievable rather than the ideal. If you stick to a definition like this one you'll always feel that true socialism hasn't been tried, and we need to strive towards this goal. It's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[Fiskey]

I haven’t said they didn’t benefit from capitalism so you’re already putting words into my mouth, and on top of trying to argue that monarchies can be socialist. I literally said exception to the rule in my first sentence and provided some context on why they are exceptions. I can do the same for Germany and a lot of Europe — Marshall Plan. Japan had the US occupy it and invested much resources to jump start that nation on the condition they don’t build a military. Again, exceptions to the rule. You can’t say that for most of the other countries. Enough with the whataboutisms.

Your original point was that countries that benefitted under capitalism also had benefitted under Imperialism, and I think these counter examples show that isn't the whole story, and will continue to be less true as countries develop over time.

My other point is that because countries don't leave each other alone, there will always be factors you can point at if you want to call examples exceptional. You can do this for any country at any period in time, it's why political historians will always have papers to write. However if you dismiss any country that doesn't fit your worldview as an exception I think you miss an understanding of the broad picture.

 

[Florida Man]

France and Great Britain have both elected socialist parties with no such threat, and have been subsequently voted out because of poor performance.

There are arguments to be had about loads of countries around the world, but if American imperialism is blamed for every failure there's not much you can say.

France’s socialist party is a social democratic party (ie not socialiam) and operated within a presidential republic within a capitalist system. UK more or less the same. Also the US isn’t going to invade NATO allies. Please understand that when I say socialism, I mean it in it’s exact definition.

American imperialism isn’t to blame for everything either. I never said that. You’re putting words into my mouth again. European imperialism has much to do with it too and we can see the effects of it to this day.

 

[Florida Man]

Your original point was that countries that benefitted under capitalism also had benefitted under Imperialism, and I think these counter examples show that isn't the whole story, and will continue to be less true as countries develop over time.

My other point is that because countries don't leave each other alone, there will always be factors you can point at if you want to call examples exceptional. You can do this for any country at any period in time, it's why political historians will always have papers to write. However if you dismiss any country that doesn't fit your worldview as an update exception I think you miss an understanding of the broad picture.

My original point was drawing the similarities between imperialism and capitalism. You’re trying to debate when you don’t even know the definition of socialism and even tried to argue that kingdoms are governments and that Saudi Arabia is socialist. Then when confronted with the actual definition, you just dismiss the definition because you think it can’t be accomplished.

 

[Fiskey]

France’s socialist party is a social democratic party (ie not socialiam) and operated within a presidential republic within a capitalist system. UK more or less the same. Also the US isn’t going to invade NATO allies. Please understand that when I say socialism, I mean it in it’s exact definition.

American imperialism isn’t to blame for everything either. I never said that. You’re putting words into my mouth again. European imperialism has much to do with it too and we can see the effects of it to this day.

I think if you're a socialist (I don't know whether you are) and want to achieve socialism it will be difficult to do so if the only form of socialism that be accepted as a basis for discussion is some perfect socialism that has never been tried.

I think socialists have to engage with examples such as Russia, China, Britain, France, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Venezuela if they are to convince people that socialism is a viable system. Of course none of these countries employed perfect socialism, but no political system is ever perfect and I doubt there ever will be a perfect political system with ideal external influences.

A political system has to be robust in the face of malign external influences and actors from within working towards something different, and if it's not it's not desirable.

 

[Fiskey]

My original point was drawing the similarities between imperialism and capitalism. You’re trying to debate when you don’t even know the definition of socialism and even tried to argue that kingdoms are governments and that Saudi Arabia is socialist. Then when confronted with the actual definition, you just dismiss the definition because you think it can’t be accomplished.

Definitions aren't fixed things decided by God. Defining a complex political system isn't the same thing as defining a table. In the realm of politics definitions are malleable, it's just important to clarify what kind of definition you are using so people don't talk past each other.

If your definition of socialism is as narrow as the one above fine, but I think it's uninteresting for the purpose of discussion.

 

[JPRouve]

The way I see it capitalism in 2020 works due to socialism and to some extent socialism works due to capitalism. A couple of examples would be public infrastructures financing which is for a large part financed by taxes of capitals, incomes and VATs. The second point is a bit more important in 2020 capitalism requires qualified workers, people can go to school long enough and learn particularly technical craft because socialism has allowed a large amount of people to not be a financially pressured as they would have been otherwise.

Also France and Britain are among the most capitalist countries.

 

[Sweet Square]

I find these definitions quite bland because we get into ideal worlds. It would be a like a believer in capitalism saying capitalism only exists when humans are seeking the best for one another and companies will compete in good faith against each other.

Politics is about the achievable rather than the ideal. If you stick to a definition like this one you'll always feel that true socialism hasn't been tried, and we need to strive towards this goal. It's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

You only find these definitions ''quite bland'' because it means discussing the topic of socialism requires talking about history, socialist theory, the circumstances in which socialist party have taken power, etc etc.

It''s far easier to simply dismiss anything falls under the banner of 'socialism''(You're use of Britain and France being example of this).

 

[Fiskey]

You only find these definitions ''quite bland'' because it means discussing the topic of socialism requires talking about history, socialist theory, the circumstances in which socialist party have taken power, etc etc.

It''s far easier to simply dismiss anything falls under the banner of 'socialism''(You're use of Britain and France being example of this).

No, I find it bland because it means you can't get anywhere. Every example can be dismissed as impure, so we can't talk about history etc.

If you take your definition I agree, socialism in that form has never been tried. It sounds good, but in a complex world would it work? I doubt it because events are too messy for such a planned system. But we'll never know as it will never be tried. It's a completely academic debate.

 

[Sweet Square]

Ah lads, it turns out democracy doesn't work at all.

They've tried it in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and it's clearly failed.

 

[Fiskey]

Also France and Britain are among the most capitalist countries.

I was talking about Britain under Labour pre 1980 and France under Mitterrand before his pivot.

 

[Florida Man]

I think if you're a socialist (I don't know whether you are) and want to achieve socialism it will be difficult to do so if the only form of socialism that be accepted as a basis for discussion is some perfect socialism that has never been tried.

I think socialists have to engage with examples such as Russia, China, Britain, France, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Venezuela if they are to convince people that socialism is a viable system. Of course none of these countries employed perfect socialism, but no political system is ever perfect and I doubt there ever will be a perfect political system with ideal external influences.

A political system has to be robust in the face of malign external influences and actors from within working towards something different, and if it's not it's not desirable.

It takes a whole paradigm shift to go from where we currently are to what you call perfect socialism. The logical next step is social democracy which does have working examples. Unless the preference is a total people’s revolution, that’s always an option but not my personal preference. And to quote your second post, I’m sorry if you’re having a hard time with that definition but it is the definition. And actual socialists go by that definition. You can’t just rewrite the definition when you feel it to be convenient.

 

[Raoul]

You only find these definitions ''quite bland'' because it means discussing the topic of socialism requires talking about history, socialist theory, the circumstances in which socialist party have taken power, etc etc.

It''s far easier to simply dismiss anything falls under the banner of 'socialism''(You're use of Britain and France being example of this).

But these discussions aren’t theoretical, they are normative aren’t they? Therefore, people are going to discuss both based on scenarios that may actually unfold in the real world, and not the way some writer thought they may in an ideal scenario they envisaged in their minds.

 

[Florida Man]

You only find these definitions ''quite bland'' because it means discussing the topic of socialism requires talking about history, socialist theory, the circumstances in which socialist party have taken power, etc etc.

It''s far easier to simply dismiss anything falls under the banner of 'socialism''(You're use of Britain and France being example of this).

Whoa that’s too much material for a guy who seriously tried to argue that Saudi Arabia is socialist earlier in this discussion.

 

[Fiskey]

It takes a whole paradigm shift to go from where we currently are to what you call perfect socialism. The logical next step is social democracy which does have working examples. Unless the preference is a total people’s revolution, that’s always an option but not my personal preference. And to quote your second post, I’m sorry if you’re having a hard time with that definition but it is the definition. And actual socialists go by that definition. You can’t just rewrite the definition when you feel it to be convenient.

I don't understand, for me it's either a paradigm shift or a social democratic system is "more socialist" than a free market capitalist system, but I don't think you can have both.

If a social democratic system is indeed more socialist and an example of what socialism would be like, although in a diluted form, we can look at past social democracies and see whether the outcomes have been good. If it requires a complete paradigm shift then these examples aren't useful.

 

[Drifter]

Capitalism v Socialism or Private sector v Public sector.

 

[Fiskey]

Whoa that’s too much material for a guy who seriously tried to argue that Saudi Arabia is socialist earlier in this discussion.

It depends what definition you use. This idea there is one true definition of socialism just isn't true.

As someone said previously, the Nazis called themselves a socialist party, but obviously wouldn't fulfill your criteria. North Korea also call themselves socialist. Why do these people think of themselves as socialists?

 

[golden_blunder]

My view on socialism and to a greater extent communism is that it's essentially the exchange of per capita growth and productivity as well as civil liberties and freedoms for economic equalisation.

In year one this is a very attractive proposition. The poor get richer and the rich get poorer which is something every socially conscious person would agree with.

The problem tends to be that the reduction in per capita growth and productivity will eventually (speed depends on the level of socialism/communism) catch up meaning everyone will be poorer (except usually those implementing the policies).

Personally I'd prefer a small and unfortunate % of the population being poor but the vast majority of the population being far wealthier (some to an incomprehensive degree), rather than the vast majority being poor and usually the politicians being exceptionally wealthy.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day... As they say.

Unless it’s a sardine

 

[JPRouve]

I was talking about Britain under Labour pre 1980 and France under Mitterrand before his pivot.

France was still a capitalist country in the 80s. France has never been anything else. You seem to confound, the nationalization of some companies with a country overall economic system which is probably the issue with these threads where people go into extremes when the reality is in-between, countries like France, the UK and even the US have an healthy dosage of socialist policies within a capitalist framework.

 

[Fiskey]

France was still a capitalist country in the 80s. France has never been anything else. You seem to confound, the nationalization of some companies with a country overall economic system which is probably the issue with these threads where people go into extremes when the reality is in-between, countries like France, the UK and even the US have an healthy dosage of socialist policies within a capitalist framework.

I don't deny this, I said they elected a socialist party/president.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Socialist states don't fail because of socialism, but because of corrupt regimes giving in to their capitalist desires. It's like saying socialists are like Hitler, because he called himself a national socialist. Yes, Hitler is remembered as a monster because of his policies regarding income equality. That's totally why. Might as well say you shouldn't be a republic, because the people's republic of North Korea isn't doing too well.

I think the best model is a mix of socialism and capitalism, but hey that's nuance, and nuance is boring.

 

[Striker10]

Ultimately, I think both fail if nations can't create their own money. There is no perfect system there. A nation without debt surely is truly listening to the people in that nation. Socialism ...democracy....don't work. Even with Brexit, you didn't get a united nation and actually many still tried to steal it by undemocratic means. So there is no point, because money is probably the root of all evil. Banks to big to fail? Whatever could be the problem with that. Socialism doesn't create strong independent people. Democracy is being used to create the world for those who create money. So which one works for us really? It comes down to selling people stupid ideas that either suit their own agenda or not but it's not about making strong nations.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Neither work because humans love creating systems they totally cannot implement in reality, only to moan that some circumstance is holding back the incredible potential of their system.

Choose your player.

"If only we had less regulation then capitalism would work better"

"If only we taxed people more, then we'd have more money to spend on services"

Both sides of the argument are reductive, redundant and resistant to any information which critiques them.

Should be obvious that the systems aren't the issue, it's the people in those systems.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't deny this, I said they elected a socialist party/president.

That's not what you said, you used France as an example of countries with failed socialism system when France is a capitalist country.

 

[Fiskey]

That's not what you said, you used France as an example of countries with failed socialism system when France is a capitalist country.

France and Great Britain have both elected socialist parties with no such threat, and have been subsequently voted out because of poor performance.

There are arguments to be had about loads of countries around the world, but if American imperialism is blamed for every failure there's not much you can say.

This is exactly what I said, I'm not sure how you can interpret it the way you have.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

A society that aims for equality over liberty will achieve neither equality, nor liberty. The society that aims for liberty over equality will achieve liberty and a greater approximation of equality than the former,...as history has proven.

Lovely frothy quote there that is actually meaningless.

 

[JPRouve]

This is exactly what I said, I'm not sure how you can interpret it the way you have.

I think if you're a socialist (I don't know whether you are) and want to achieve socialism it will be difficult to do so if the only form of socialism that be accepted as a basis for discussion is some perfect socialism that has never been tried.

I think socialists have to engage with examples such as Russia, China, Britain, France, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Venezuela if they are to convince people that socialism is a viable system. Of course none of these countries employed perfect socialism, but no political system is ever perfect and I doubt there ever will be a perfect political system with ideal external influences.

A political system has to be robust in the face of malign external influences and actors from within working towards something different, and if it's not it's not desirable.

You literally used the term political system several times in this post. And that's after the post that you just quoted.

 

[Fiskey]

You literally used the term political system several times in this post. And that's after the post that you just quoted.

Apologies if it's unclear, but I am in no way saying all the countries I have listed are socialist. I am saying that these countries have had periods of implementing socialist policies, so we can use them as examples of the benefits and costs of socialism, although naturally diluted.

 

[JPRouve]

Apologies if it's unclear, but I am in no way saying all the countries I have listed are socialist. I am saying that these countries have had periods of implementing socialist policies, so we can use them as examples of the benefits and costs of socialism, although naturally diluted.

Every country has periods of implementing socialist policies, all of them also have larger periods of implementing capitalist policies. And the conclusion is that bad policies or badly implemented policies are harmful regardless of the philosophy behind them.

Edit: It's also worth reminding that France only voted for the PS twice, Mitterand was reelected and stayed in power for 14 years and then Hollande who was only elected because the country have a strong dislike for Sarkozy. Neither examples support your point.

 

[Sweet Square]

No, I find it bland because it means you can't get anywhere. Every example can be dismissed as impure, so we can't talk about history etc.

If you take your definition I agree, socialism in that form has never been tried. It sounds good, but in a complex world would it work? I doubt it because events are too messy for such a planned system. But we'll never know as it will never be tried. It's a completely academic debate.

Proves my point. There's has been attempts at socialism in this form but it comes into being under incredibly difficult circumstances - Catalonia during the Spanish civil war for example or at the start of the Russian Revolution(To name a few).

Whoa that’s too much material for a guy who seriously tried to argue that Saudi Arabia is socialist earlier in this discussion.

Yeah really wasn't expecting that twist, if I'm honest.

But these discussions aren’t theoretical, they are normative aren’t they? Therefore, people are going to discuss both based on scenarios that may actually unfold in the real world, and not the way some writer thought they may in an ideal scenario they envisaged in their minds.

But they aren't(Well the person in question isn't). It's just simply well a socialist party was voted out of government so socialism doesn't work. Which goes back to my earlier point, no one would use the argument that democracy doesn't work because of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea(They have democratic in their name so it should not be ignored!)or that Britain is good example as to why countries should have a monarch as head of state or that current day China proves communism is works.

If anything this simplistic view of politics is just a leftover from the cold war.

 

[Buster15]

Every country has periods of implementing socialist policies, all of them also have larger periods of implementing capitalist policies. And the conclusion is that bad policies or badly implemented policies are harmful regardless of the philosophy behind them.

Completely agree.
It is rarely just the policies. It is frequently the result of had planning and badly managed implementation.

 

[Fiskey]

Every country has periods of implementing socialist policies, all of them also have larger periods of implementing capitalist policies. And the conclusion is that bad policies or badly implemented policies are harmful regardless of the philosophy behind them.

Edit: It's also worth reminding that France only voted for the PS twice, Mitterand was reelected and stayed in power for 14 years and then Hollande who was only elected because the country have a strong dislike for Sarkozy. Neither examples support your point.

I still think you're missing the point I was trying to make, by taking things out of the context of the discussion in which it was being had. We were talking about definitions of socialism, and I was saying if you take too narrow a definition the conversation becomes ideal and academic, rather than real world.

I was listing historical examples of where you might be able to learn something about the consequences of socialist policy, and thus more about socialism. I was making the point that if you ignore these examples the discussion becomes too theoretical for my liking as "ideal" socialism has never been apart from the very short periods @Sweet Square highlights above. I haven't been arguing as to whether/what extent France was a socialist country.

 

[fergieisold]

If the socialists can present case studies of countries where it has been a success it would be useful. My non expert view is the evidence seems to be Capitalism built what we are lucky to have in the UK. Is it perfect? No. But it is a system that has worked...so far.

 

[JPRouve]

I still think you're missing the point I was trying to make, by taking things out of the context of the discussion in which it was being had. We were talking about definitions of socialism, and I was saying if you take too narrow a definition the conversation becomes ideal and academic, rather than real world.

I was listing historical examples of where you might be able to learn something about the consequences of socialist policy, and thus more about socialism. I was making the point that if you ignore these examples the discussion becomes too theoretical for my liking as "ideal" socialism has never been apart from the very short periods @Sweet Square highlights above. I haven't been arguing as to whether/what extent France was a socialist country.

I'm not, it's not about narrowness but the fact that you mixed a system and isolated policies, this isn't about idealism but what you did blurs the lines more than anything else. No one is ignoring these examples, they are simply not examples of the point that you are trying to make, France or the UK aren't examples of socialism as a system, things can't be stretched indiscriminately just to fit an argument that is clearly wrong.
And to be fair, I need to correct myself, France is a country with a system that is a mix of capitalism, socialism and mercantilism with capitalsim and mercantilism being slightly above socialism. These three theories have had successful and dreadful applications, none of them work efficiently without the others and the ideal mix depends on the context of each countries, their locations, their natural resources and their social/economic/cultural history.