For the TL;DR version see last paragraph.

A few minutes ago I was listening to Mark Levin on WABC. Mark Levin is a really really conservative talk show host (highly critical of Obama, passionately calls him and his policies Socialist, Marxist, will lead to the end of America as we know it, etc.). I'm doing this from memory so the words probably aren't exact.

He got a call from a guy who was pretty much a talk radio troll. He says "Heeyyyyy Mark I looooooove you Levinskiiiiii I looooove listenin' to you get all mad and start yelling I listen to you allllll the time just you hear you yell all the time man!!!" Mark says "So do you want to get to your point?"

And the guy says "Yeah I love it when you get mad Mark and I'm gonna say something just to get you even more mad." "Well what is it." "Name ONE SOCIALIST COUNTRY that has failed. ONE."

There was a very brief pause. Then Mark, very calmly says;

"Soviet Union"
"Heh heh you you"
"East Germany, uh, Belarus..."
"You see Mark you're just.."
"Hey, I'm answering your question!"
"You can't, Levinski, you're.."

Now he starts getting loud.

"And I know what you're gonna say too, you're gonna say 'those were communist' WELL WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT STARTS!? I know TYRANNY WHEN I SEE IT!"
"NORWAY MAN! NORWAY'S..."
"NORWAY!?!? What are there, 3 people in Norway??! Is Norway feeding the world? Is Norway bringing drugs to the world? What's Norway's contribution to ending hunger in Africa? ZERO!"
"I LOVE IT MARK YOU'RE YELLING NOW I LOVE IT!!!"
"GET OUTTA HERE, YOU IDIOT!"

And he hangs up on him, and goes on...

"Canada's next too! They're gonna be next, they can't even afford their own military! We [the United States] have to pay for it!"

There was more but I don't remember. Now I listen to Mark's show all the time but I've never heard him make quite that many claims at one time. Most of the time he speaks in terms of ideology but after something like that I feel the need to take a step back and ask how much of that is really true. The one I'm most curious about is whether there's been a failed socialist country, and since this board is just soaking wet with socialists... ;)

So if you'd rather not read through my whole story, I put the "claims" in blue, and I want to know how much truth there is to them. Thanks in advance. :goodjob:

No political ideology is fail-proof. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there has been a failed socialist country. It also depends on what you consider failing. I know many countries that fail in many aspects of things, like finances and human rights, but haven't really "failed".

One thing I can say though, is that Canada can afford it's military ;) Canada's financial situation is bad, just like the USA's, but it is better. Canada's banks are doing really well, especially TD Bank. Because of that, some people speculate that Toronto may become the financial capital of the world, as 3 Canadian banks topped the NA's 10 largest (RBC 5th, TD 7th and Scotia Bank 9th). TD recently purchased "Banknorth and Commerce partly because they had both opted out of the sub-prime loan mania".

The last quote I thought was rather ridiculous though. Many American banks and loan agencies are getting money from Canadian Banks, due to the fact that Canadian banks can afford to loan money. When Manulife needed money, they borrowed $3 billion dollars to shore up its balance sheet.

Britain became socialist in 1945. Needless to say, they no longer are.

I would also say that Zimbabwe has definitely failed.

Socialism must come after industrialization, after capitalism. While the pursuit of social equality and justice is admirable, it should be noted the mediocre effect that attempts at fast-forwarding through that stage have had. Perhaps the Soviet Union's NEP and subsequent five-year plans were the most successful at doing this, but that is also a testament to Russia's large pool of natural resources to draw from; Cuba, for instance, has had no such fortune. While the progress made by these nations, adherents of the ideas laid out by Lenin, has been admirable, the shortcoming of not waiting for that capitalist stage is also evident. There is no reason to believe that a capitalist democracy that wished to pursue socialism would be in any way similar to any socialist nation that has ever existed.

As for the socialist nations that have "failed," it depends on your definition of "failure." Their failure came in being unable to outpace the West in a fantastically expensive arms race, not in being able to provide their citizens with the wealth of benefits they enjoyed; or when they did, it was a result of the former impacting the latter. But I would even then say that the reason for that "failure" is the dramatically different histories between the Eastern Bloc and the West that gave the West a huge head start. For all intents and purposes, Russia was in the 18th century until the 1920s.

Failed in what way?

Chile failed, but that was due to outside intervention. Ditto with several African nations that tried their hands at Socialism. Several nations, such as Australia and Britain, have briefly flirted with Socialism before plunging back into the dark pit of Capitalism. Other than that, I can't really think of any.

And this "talk radio troll" sounds frigging awesome. He's great, we should find out who he is and give him his own show.

One thing I can say though, is that Canada can afford it's military ;)

The last quote I thought was rather ridiculous...
I had a feeling that one was a bunch of nothing. Well, it is real time talking debate, not like on an internet forum where you can analyze bit-by-bit.
Socialism must come after industrialization, after capitalism. While the pursuit of social equality and justice is admirable, it should be noted the mediocre effect that attempts at fast-forwarding through that stage have had. Perhaps the Soviet Union's NEP and subsequent five-year plans were the most successful at doing this, but that is also a testament to Russia's large pool of natural resources to draw from; Cuba, for instance, has had no such fortune. While the progress made by these nations, adherents of the ideas laid out by Lenin, has been admirable, the shortcoming of not waiting for that capitalist stage is also evident. There is no reason to believe that a capitalist democracy that wished to pursue socialism would be in any way similar to any socialist nation that has ever existed.
Hmm... very interesting... so I suppose if no country has ever been really socialist (or at least arrived there in the proper order) it would be tougher to find one that's failed.
As for the socialist nations that have "failed," it depends on your definition of "failure." Their failure came in being unable to outpace the West in a fantastically expensive arms race, not in being able to provide their citizens with the wealth of benefits they enjoyed; or when they did, it was a result of the former impacting the latter. But I would even then say that the reason for that "failure" is the dramatically different histories between the Eastern Bloc and the West that gave the West a huge head start. For all intents and purposes, Russia was in the 18th century until the 1920s.
Is this about Russia or E. Germany? Or both of them?
Failed in what way?
I don't know. Neither side really provided any definition of failure. I don't know if either of them meant the country gets driven into the ground or just fails at socialism.
And this "talk radio troll" sounds frigging awesome. He's great, we should find out who he is and give him his own show.
He pretty much gave Mark another chance to put his indomitable spirit on display, if you want to call that awesome. It made for some great radio, that's for sure. If he had his own show it would probably suck though, considering that he didn't have much to say, he was just trying to get a rise out of Mark, as he made very clear. Plus he had an annoying voice, even on the same show as Mark Levin. And Mark Levin's voice is pretty darn annoying (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqmD9Zf8VUs).

Hmm... very interesting... so I suppose if no country has ever been really socialist (or at least arrived there in the proper order) it would be tougher to find one that's failed.

They have attempted Socialism, and some have done quite well at it, but they are still a world apart from what Socialism could, and should, be. Given the nature of our economic situation, we may know sooner rather than later.


Is this about Russia or E. Germany? Or both of them?

The further east of the River Elbe you go, the more true it gets. East Germany, however, has its own unique history that set it permanently behind West Germany from the start, namely, getting to be responsible for both East AND West Germany's reparations to the Soviet Union after the War was over.

For the TL;DR version see last paragraph.

A few minutes ago I was listening to Mark Levin on WABC. Mark Levin is a really really conservative talk show host (highly critical of Obama, passionately calls him and his policies Socialist, Marxist, will lead to the end of America as we know it, etc.). I'm doing this from memory so the words probably aren't exact.

He got a call from a guy who was pretty much a talk radio troll. He says "Heeyyyyy Mark I looooooove you Levinskiiiiii I looooove listenin' to you get all mad and start yelling I listen to you allllll the time just you hear you yell all the time man!!!" Mark says "So do you want to get to your point?"

And the guy says "Yeah I love it when you get mad Mark and I'm gonna say something just to get you even more mad." "Well what is it." "Name ONE SOCIALIST COUNTRY that has failed. ONE."

There was a very brief pause. Then Mark, very calmly says;

"Soviet Union"
"Heh heh you you"
"East Germany, uh, Belarus..."
"You see Mark you're just.."
"Hey, I'm answering your question!"
"You can't, Levinski, you're.."

Now he starts getting loud.

"And I know what you're gonna say too, you're gonna say 'those were communist' WELL WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT STARTS!? I know TYRANNY WHEN I SEE IT!"
"NORWAY MAN! NORWAY'S..."
"NORWAY!?!? What are there, 3 people in Norway??! Is Norway feeding the world? Is Norway bringing drugs to the world? What's Norway's contribution to ending hunger in Africa? ZERO!"
"I LOVE IT MARK YOU'RE YELLING NOW I LOVE IT!!!"
"GET OUTTA HERE, YOU IDIOT!"

And he hangs up on him, and goes on...

"Canada's next too! They're gonna be next, they can't even afford their own military! We [the United States] have to pay for it!"

There was more but I don't remember. Now I listen to Mark's show all the time but I've never heard him make quite that many claims at one time. Most of the time he speaks in terms of ideology but after something like that I feel the need to take a step back and ask how much of that is really true. The one I'm most curious about is whether there's been a failed socialist country, and since this board is just soaking wet with socialists... ;)

So if you'd rather not read through my whole story, I put the "claims" in blue, and I want to know how much truth there is to them. Thanks in advance. :goodjob:

That's not conservative, that's lunatic.

Britain became socialist in 1945. Needless to say, they no longer are.

I would also say that Zimbabwe has definitely failed.

The UK voted social-democrat in '45, the people being well aware of Churchill's social policies; Mugabe's ZANU movement may have started out socialist, but gradually just developed into another dictatorship, running the country into the ground.

Didn't 'Abd al-Nasir's socialist policies more or less fail in Egypt?

They have attempted Socialism, and some have done quite well at it, but they are still a world apart from what Socialism could, and should, be.
OK then. Thanks for the informative responses. :)
That's not conservative, that's lunatic.
You do know this is part of the fun right? :p

He pretty much gave Mark another chance to put his indomitable spirit on display, if you want to call that awesome. It made for some great radio, that's for sure. If he had his own show it would probably suck though, considering that he didn't have much to say, he was just trying to get a rise out of Mark, as he made very clear. Plus he had an annoying voice, even on the same show as Mark Levin. And Mark Levin's voice is pretty darn annoying (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqmD9Zf8VUs).
If by "put his indomitable spirit on display" you mean "sound like an ignorant jack-off" you're right. He pretty much revealed he had no clue what Socialism was, and was simply pissing in the wind, like most political talk-show hosts. East Germany and the Soviet Union were not eve close to Socialist. Hell, even the states I referred to as Socialist were more Social Democratic, to use the current terminology, but they were a damn sight closer than the Warsaw Pact nations.

Didn't 'Abd al-Nasir's socialist policies more or less fail in Egypt?
They were pretty half-hearted, ill thought out, and suffered outside interference from day one. But yeah, they failed fairly miserably, like much of what Nasser did.

Wait, doesn't the USSR count as a failure? Or am I missing something here?

Britain became socialist in 1945. Needless to say, they no longer are.

In what way is Britain now less socialist than it was in 1945?

If the conversation reported in the OP is how politics is conducted in America, this explains a lot.

Wait, doesn't the USSR count as a failure? Or am I missing something here?
The USSR had socialist elements, and called itself socialist, but it wasn't socialist.

In what way is Britain now less socialist than it was in 1945?



privitisation of trains, steel, phones, gas, water, electricity etc

As always when it is about socialism on an english forum I got confused about the phrase socialism itself. The reason is, that you use that word in a different way then we do in Germany. Some say Germany for example is socialistic. Well, that may be true, but that depends on the meaning of the word in english. In Germany for example we call a state like ours a social democracy or a social market economy (that depends on the context I'd say). A socialist country for a German would be the GDR, USSR, Cuba, North Corea etc. I'd say you should really give a clear definition for socialism in the first post. I think you english speaking guys should invent a new word for a socialsm like in Germany nowadays in general. This word has been used for propaganda several times (Obama etc.) and a lot of people seem to buy it... That's dangerous.
To make it possible that everyone knows what I mean I'll use the word socialism in this post like we do in Germany. So, a social democracy (I'll use this word because it's shorter then the other I mentioned above) is capitalism. It's just that the state is interfering into the market / economy to avoid it is getting out of controll. The state does that by laws and rules. For example he forbids cartels and monopols in most cases and gives money to unemployed etc. But it is still capitalism as there is private property of production goods like machines, the ground on which fabs stand on and so on. For short: there are enterprises. What you guys seem to understand by saying capitalism is free enterprise economy. But that would mean that the state wouldn't interfer into the market at all and that would lead to anarchy. Not even in the USA this is the case! This type of economy is only another utopy. A socialistic state on the other side is a state with planned economy and thus is marxistic. Well, there may be forms of socialisms where this is taken a bit more liberal. Private property of production goods may be allowed on very low levels. Hungary tried it that way. However, almost all things were still property of the state and Hungarys modell didn't work either. All these states have failed or are about to fail (Cuba, North Corea... China is an exception so far because they aren't so strict under economic points of view and thus get a lot of money from foreign enterprises; I see two options for China: either they evolute into a social democracy or the day will come when their system will fail as well). So, in that sense there may have been social democratic states that may have failed, but not because they had a social market economy. Economy could have been a reason for failing, but not because of it's type. You could say that the Republic of Weimar failed because of economic reasons for example. There were definately econimic reasons for its failure that allowed Hitler to get to power, but those economic reasons were rather wrong economic decisions then a not working system in general.

How do you define what's social? Isn't much of the stuff you know man-made? I'm not going deep into choose the government but there usually is a new one around the corner when those who are suppose to uphold the law violate it?

An idea like a country can't fail but a leader/citizen/person can.

Jamestown.

The men who first occupied Jamestown had a socialist structure developed. Everyone farms their crops and places them in a central granary from which anyone and everyone took their meals from.

When it was implimented, men started to not work, simply because they didn't have to work to get a meal (they just had to wait for others to farm their crops, and then they would take their share).

When the colony started to fail, John Smith arrived, and he basically said, "What the hell is this? Whose idea what this?" And he impliments the rule 'You eat what you grow'.

Its not a country, but its an example.

If by "put his indomitable spirit on display" you mean "sound like an ignorant jack-off" you're right.
:yup: These guys thrive on it.
If the conversation reported in the OP is how politics is conducted in America, this explains a lot.
Oh please, don't take Mark Levin's show to be an example of political conduct. It's entertainment dressed up in bonnie blue flags. I mean, did you look at the clip I posted?
Jamestown.

The men who first occupied Jamestown had a socialist structure developed. Everyone farms their crops and places them in a central granary from which anyone and everyone took their meals from.

When it was implimented, men started to not work, simply because they didn't have to work to get a meal (they just had to wait for others to farm their crops, and then they would take their share).

When the colony started to fail, John Smith arrived, and he basically said, "What the hell is this? Whose idea what this?" And he impliments the rule 'You eat what you grow'.

Its not a country, but its an example.
Yeah I mentioned this story once in the "Ask a Red" thread in OT. Cheezy said it wasn't really socialism though, it was really "collectivism".

I thought the reason why Jamestown failed was that it was populated entirely by prospectors, who spent their time looking for wealth instead of farming. It wasn't so much laziness as an imbalance of skills. Some other societies that operated a communal approach to production and distribution, such as the Thirty Reductions in Paraguay, did so successfully. So I think that this idea you often hear from Americans, that under such a system there cannot be any motivation to work and it will inevitably fail, is too simplistic.

Chile failed, but that was due to outside intervention.
You misspelled "hyperinflation."

As for one example of a great socialist failure: Tanzania. Why? Well, because Nyerere admitted it. :lol:

National Socialist Germany was a notable failure.

Native American societies could be considered socialist communal sharing of resources, no concept of land ownership, communal raising of families, equality between men and women. A socialist paradise even. They only failed because of European invasion and genocide but otherwise they could have survived for quite some time.

National Socialist Germany was a notable failure.
National Socialism != Socialism returns true.

People's Republic of South Yemen.

You misspelled "hyperinflation."

As for one example of a great socialist failure: Tanzania. Why? Well, because Nyerere admitted it. :lol:
No, no I didn't. For your elucidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile). Not arguing that Allende's reforms would work anyway - I don't think they would - but it's pretty obvious that it wasn't socialism that caused the collapse in Chile.

^^^ There was no East Yemen, there was South and North. I don't remember which was socialist and which wasn't though.

The Weimar Republic was a failure, and to some degree, socialist.

The SDP took many efforts to distance themselves from Socialism once the Republic was formed, as can be seen by how they dealt with Luxemburg and Liebsknecht. Of course, the reasons Weimar failed were not because of Socialistic policies; any government during that time period in Germany would have performed similarly bad.

1. Define socialism.
2. Define fail.

Some people might argue that the United States is a socialist country that is presently failing pointing to social security, Medicare, public schools and the financial crisis.

The SDP took many efforts to distance themselves from Socialism once the Republic was formed, as can be seen by how they dealt with Luxemburg and Liebsknecht. Of course, the reasons Weimar failed were not because of Socialistic policies; any government during that time period in Germany would have performed similarly bad.

I suppose so, but that was more distancing itself from communism than socialism. And how they dealt with the Spartacist Uprising was probably more an indication of their lack of control over the Freicorps than there own attitude towards the USPD and the Spartakusbund (although they obviously disliked them greatly, and saw them as a threat). But it was more the extremism than the political ideology that they were afraid of and distancing themselves from. 26% of GDP was spent on welfare in 1928, almost double fifteen years previously. This was a socialist policy. Also, the rise of trade unions probably indicates socialism, not just democracy and freedom of assembly. But, yeah, these weren't the reasons for its failure. It was just a failed state that happened to be socialist.

The United States also had trade unions at that time and before, and would not be considered socialist by any means.

The United States also had trade unions at that time and before, and would not be considered socialist by any means.

I did not mean trade unions were socialist. I meant that the sudden emergence and power of them would be an indicator of a move towards socialism, or an indicator of a socialist state, especially when given real power. In 1918, the number of Germans in trade unions=0. In 1928, the number of Germans in trade unions=6 million. Trade unions are not a sign of socialism, but the rapid emergence of them is. Me thinks.

BTW- I think this sort of socialism was good, but was destined for failure due to other circumstances.

No, trade unions ARE socialist, but their presence is not an indictment of a state as being socialist.

I think Wiemar and the SDP was well-founded, but moved too far center. They made up for this, however, when they helped found the DDR in 1945.

No, trade unions ARE socialist, but their presence is not an indictment of a state as being socialist.

I think Wiemar and the SDP was well-founded, but moved too far center. They made up for this, however, when they helped found the DDR in 1945.

I got idea from my textbook, which states, "Weimar Germany became in fact the first true Sozialstaat or welfare state." So maybe I'm getting confused between a welfare state and a socialist state. But what really is the difference? :dunno:

Perhaps they weren't a socialist state, but a liberal state, which seemed socialist due to the drastic change from the previous militaristic and class-conscious society, to a state that provided many freedoms, large welfare benefits, and was led, at times, by the SPD.

No, trade unions ARE socialist, but their presence is not an indictment of a state as being socialist.
Never thought I'd see the day when you said that socialism was a crime. :shake:

Question: does Kerenskyite Russia count as a Socialist state?

1. Define socialism.
...

Some people might argue that the United States is a socialist country that is presently failing pointing to social security, Medicare, public schools and the financial crisis.
Yeah, exactly. That's what I wanted to say.

I got idea from my textbook, which states, "Weimar Germany became in fact the first true Sozialstaat or welfare state." So maybe I'm getting confused between a welfare state and a socialist state. But what really is the difference? :dunno:

Perhaps they weren't a socialist state, but a liberal state, which seemed socialist due to the drastic change from the previous militaristic and class-conscious society, to a state that provided many freedoms, large welfare benefits, and was led, at times, by the SPD.

A welfare state remains capitalist in nature.

Never thought I'd see the day when you said that socialism was a crime. :shake:

It was an artistic use of the term :p

Question: does Kerenskyite Russia count as a Socialist state?

It was going that way, but there are three important things to remember: first, that Kerensky was the only socialist in the cabinet, so he was hardly getting his way all the time, second, that the Petrograd Soviet was doing everything in its power (which was growing daily) to piss them off, often by pre-empting them in establishing socialist councils in new places (which is why it was called the USSR at the start), and after July no one really cared about him, since they saw him in a "new boss, same as the old boss" kind of light, hence the actions at the end of October.

"NORWAY!?!? What are there, 3 people in Norway??! Is Norway feeding the world? Is Norway bringing drugs to the world? What's Norway's contribution to ending hunger in Africa? ZERO!"

Erm, Norway gives 1% of its GDP to foreign aid, i know thats some sort of goal but i don't know if any other countries actually do this?

That's 26,2 billion NOK/ 3,7 billion USD. Not all of this goes to Africa of course. I haven't been able to find a source for how much goes there. But AFAIK they are one of the areas that get the most. So to say our contribution is ZERO is a bit dramatic.

The guy sounds like an idiot anyways.

I've never really understood the difference between communism and socialism. Every acts as if their interchangeable.

Also why do Communist governments always seem to end up as dictatorships?

I've never really understood the difference between communism and socialism. Every acts as if their interchangeable.
That may be because the phrase communism is often used incorrectly. According to Marx, at least how they taught it to me in school, socialism is meant t be a temporary thing only. The goal is to reach communism. In communism there is no money for example. If a society would turn to communism immidiatly it would collapse, because people are unable to deal with it. They have to learn it at first. Just think of the money thing. If there would be no money every people would like to own everything and no one would go to work anymore. That's why there is socialism at first: to prepare the people. You could now argument that there never have been communism and you wold be right (well, there may have been some small experiments).

Also why do Communist governments always seem to end up as dictatorships?
Well, that's a good question actually. I guess all those people - Stalin, Lenin, Honecker, Pol Pot, Mao, Fidel - may have been good guys initially. However, every movement needs a leader, a face. These people are usually popular, at least amongst the participants of the movement. It's a bit like these leaders would be the messiahs that rescue the society. I guess this is the point where those leaders get mad. They simply like it too much to have power over the people. Next step is, that they develop methods to keep this power. Look what Chavez did recently. At this point they are still loved by the people, that's why nobody stops them. Now these leaders concentrate more and more power on themselfes till it's a dictatorship. Finally they build up a terror state to not loose their power as people got disappointed and unhappy. This is where they start to become paranoid and kill lots of people.

However, this is actually not the topic I think. I don't think there is a dictatorship in Norway and there is also no socialism like you seem to think of. That's why a good definition of socialism is needed here...

That may be because the phrase communism is often used incorrectly. According to Marx, at least how they taught it to me in school, socialism is meant t be a temporary thing only. The goal is to reach communism. In communism there is no money for example. If a society would turn to communism immidiatly it would collapse, because people are unable to deal with it. They have to learn it at first. Just think of the money thing. If there would be no money every people would like to own everything and no one would go to work anymore. That's why there is socialism at first: to prepare the people. You could now argument that there never have been communism and you wold be right (well, there may have been some small experiments).


Well, that's a good question actually. I guess all those people - Stalin, Lenin, Honecker, Pol Pot, Mao, Fidel - may have been good guys initially. However, every movement needs a leader, a face. These people are usually popular, at least amongst the participants of the movement. It's a bit like these leaders would be the messiahs that rescue the society. I guess this is the point where those leaders get mad. They simply like it too much to have power over the people. Next step is, that they develop methods to keep this power. Look what Chavez did recently. At this point they are still loved by the people, that's why nobody stops them. Now these leaders concentrate more and more power on themselfes till it's a dictatorship. Finally they build up a terror state to not loose their power as people got disappointed and unhappy. This is where they start to become paranoid and kill lots of people.

However, this is actually not the topic I think. I don't think there is a dictatorship in Norway and there is also no socialism like you seem to think of. That's why a good definition of socialism is needed here...

you came close. Just going to add from the perspective a former hardline communist.There is a diference between socialism and communism. Socialism is the stage following the industrial revolution. To answer several questions at once i am going to review a brief history of social and economic thought.

Socialism comes after capitalism; capitalism is the economic philosophy that states that the government should have as limited a role in the economy as possible, let free market prices change according to the value of a commodity or service as determined by a society, and that the wages, job benefits, etc. earned while employed, are a formal agreement reached between an employer and a worker without the interference of the government. According Das Kapital, the capitalist economy will progress at such a speed that production of commodities requires a steady supply of materials that a state can't get from within it's own borders. Marx stresses that this causes imperialism, where the state goes to conquer another state to acquire raw resources. Look at Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. It took materials from canada, australia, and especialy India, to fuel it's industries (for example, cotton from india gets sent to Britain to be made into textiles which get sold to markets in canda and australia which fuels further economic growth.)

A potential consequence of imperialism is that colonies and protectorates are used soley to produce certain raw resources, and the colonial power restricts local industry (India had more industrial output in the 16th century then it did in the 18th century because of British policies). This lack of industries decreases the number of jobs available in a state and leaves the local market subject to variances in market prices; which can be catastrophic for any agricultural nation (In economics, agriculture means raw materials, i.e., Saudi Arabia is an agricultural nation in that it exports crude oil to british companies that process it into other products).

In the industrial nation, employers will begin to slash wages as the materials to produce commodities run out. Additionaly, capitalist buisesses will begin to produce more then they can sell, and as a result their prices will be further cut to make the buisness competitive again. As the process continues, the number of rich buisness owners will decrease because of economc pressure destroying buisnesses and the number of poor workers will dramatically increase; consequently, the difference between the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor will widen to incredible lengths. At this stage, the starving and poor workers are to unite and overthrow the decreasing numbers of bourgoius and establish a socialist state.

The socialist state is to have these features to "cure" the economic problems of capitalism (Marx believes that all social forces are biproducts of economic forces, and thus to change the economic system is to change the social atmosphere of a society):
(communist manifesto)
1. Abolition of private property
2. A heavy progressive tax
3. Abolition of right to inheretance
4. confiscate property of rebels and dissenters
5. state has an exclusive monopoly over credit, and banks.
6. State controls transportation
7. Creation of agriculture armies of workers and Industrial workers
8. State provides free education to children and that child labor is abolished.

These are the attributes of a socialist state. These attributes are to help the states transition into the communist nonstate. Marx argues that the social thinking needed for communism must be taught to several generations before people have progressed into the state of communism (simarly like how Moore descibes Utopian people as having learned to use toilets of gold so that the people don't see a great use in wealth; although some have considered is book a satire on socialist thought, it was one of the first books left uncensored by the Soviets in the 1930s because of how well it paralleled the government policies of the soviet state). The attributes of a socialist state are to help this problem along until the entire world has become socialistic.

Communism is to occur later. Communism calls for the abolition of the city. The city in a communist world is to dissolve so populations become more evenly spread out in the countryside. Industrial development caused by division of labor is to be abolished, as it "rids a man of his soul and sense of worth," as described by marx. Money and thus credit will cease to exist as people will produce for all and consume only so much as needed. Crime will have disapeared because everyone believes in peace and universal brotherhood. The state will cease to exist as their services are no longer needed to keep control as control is kept through community controls. The world will "ascend" into global anarchy, and thus a communist utopia devoid of starvation, pain, and violence.

There are many states that have turned to socialism, and no state has become a pure communist nonstate (one could argue that the nonstate of catalonia in 1937 could be described as coming the closest to the communist ideal but it to fell to nationalist forces by 1939). All previously considered "Communist countries" are indeed socialistic as they did have governments, money, and state controlled economies and did not achieve an unprecendented level of anarchy in politics and econmics.

THere is a difference however between theory and the actual results of socialistic thought. Few industrial nations became socialist by "revolution." Most became socialist through reform. Most agrarian states or countries under the dominion of imperialist powers became socialistic through revolution. Russia in the early 20th century was lacking an industrial base, so Lenin created a new system of economic and political thought. HE adopted the ideas of plato, in that social revolution could occur if a state was strictly protected by an intelegint elite (plato called them guardians) but lenin called his small revolutionary commitee the guardians of the future socialist russia. His theories allowed small agricultural states to socialists without experiencing the industrial revolution. When the soviet union was established it became a socialist state, and it exported these ideas to other states. This was how socialist thought along the soviet model developed.

Alternatively, socialist democrats as they were called, didn't believe in creating a socialist state through revolution, instead they tried to do it by working with their local governments through political and economic reform. This was what developed in western europe in the last eighty years. as a result their ideas of socialism diverged from the soviet model (eventually china created it's own model that only vietnam and cuba odopted; even if in limited reform). This is where the present confusion on socialism comes from. The soviet model and the chinese model of socialism are aimed at creating the communist utopia, while the social democrats adopted nationalistic tendencies and believed that the values of communism could be achieved without turning to full communist anarchy (for instance social democrats believe in free public education and an economy protected by the state without going through a revolution).

To state it clearly, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, The previous USSR, China, Egypt, Libya, N. Korea, angola, mozambique, India, and vietnam to name a few are/were socialistic. So yes these states are/were socialistic, conversely, the US is not socialistic (at least it is not that way yet, although one could argue that america is heading down this direction); the US in the last twenty years has expienced an intense amount of deregulation of the economy and governmental workings in the life of americans, but since the wars in the middle east america has taken on some socialist qualities to deal with the war, but they are considered temperory measures and not measures that are to permanent, unlike the purpose of the social democrats that believe that their reforms are aiming for more permanent solutions.

As to how a state could fail, they must fail economically ( an econmic collapse) or a political collapse (a revolution or anarchy constitutes politica collapse); economic stagnaton, or the failure to stimulate foreign states is not a prerequisate to failing as a socialist state. Foreign aid is not a quality of socialism, the idea of helping foreign states comes from the ideas of globalization; and idea started by the portuguese 500 years earlier, before the idea of socialism.

THerefore, the only states that have truly failed as socialist states are the USSR, and Eastern Europe socialist governments based on th soviet model.
The USSR faced political collapse and destroyed much of the socialist policies that it viewed contrary to economic growth. Eastern Europe also failed as socialist based on the soviet model since gorbachav left their states to rule themselves. The other socialist states of today have not failed. These states will eventually have to rid themselves of some socialist ideas in order to progress, but they have not experienced an economic collapse, just economic stagnation is not yet economic collapse.

AS to why many consider states as socialistic because they have dictators: these states had dicatators because they followed Soviet styled thought on politics and economics, and many times (as in the case of many african countries) they diverged into seperate spheres of politics because they were agrarian states trying to skip the industrial rev in order to overthrow the imperialist powers. Many just became rulers to take money from the people. But others face legit problems stemming from cross border ethnic differences (not to mention in state domestic differences) that are usually caused by overpopulation and too few intellectuals from Europe and N. America settling there to help these states progress. Imperialism helped in this, but since imperialism has died, these african states face many problems that they can't solve themselves, as such, the failure of socialist govs in africa is not necesarilly because of the fallacies of socialist thought.

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, USSR AND EAST EUROPE ARE SOCIALIST STATES THAT HAVE FAILED BECAUSE THEY EXPERIENCED POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. sory for the rant.

Thank you both your detailed replies even though I did not understand most of it.

Yeah... Icaria909's post is quite comprehensive (and uses vocabulary that is a bit unusual for foreigners but necessary in that case), but also quite interesting. Now I doubt it even more that communism could work. I don't even like the idea of anarchy.
However, I still don't consider western europe or modern eastern europe as socialistic. I'd consider them as "regulated capitalism". Of course the state interfers into the market, but there are still enterprises that work independent from the state. Even more, those states try to avoid things like monopols that would have negative effects on the markets. So you could say it even helps to keep the markets alive. AFAIK in Hungary they just started to privatize the hospitals - not very socialistic (ironically the party of the PM calls itself socialistic - well, just a name). You could now say that it is only another model of socialism, a model different from the USSRs. That wouldn't be wrong actually, but still I don't think that socialism is the right word for that as there are strong capitalistic elements. Hmmm... maybe you could say it is between socialism and capitalism - a hybrid.

Yeah... Icaria909's post is quite comprehensive (and uses vocabulary that is a bit unusual for foreigners but necessary in that case), but also quite interesting. Now I doubt it even more that communism could work. I don't even like the idea of anarchy.
However, I still don't consider western europe or modern eastern europe as socialistic. I'd consider them as "regulated capitalism". Of course the state interfers into the market, but there are still enterprises that work independent from the state. Even more, those states try to avoid things like monopols that would have negative effects on the markets. So you could say it even helps to keep the markets alive. AFAIK in Hungary they just started to privatize the hospitals - not very socialistic (ironically the party of the PM calls itself socialistic - well, just a name). You could now say that it is only another model of socialism, a model different from the USSRs. That wouldn't be wrong actually, but still I don't think that socialism is the right word for that as there are strong capitalistic elements. Hmmm... maybe you could say it is between socialism and capitalism - a hybrid.


Thats why it is difficult to judge if a state is socialistic. Their policies change and so it is difficult to judge if a state is consistantly socialistic. Some states, it is easy to decide because they make the dominant ideology of the state (USSR), while other like Portugal lets other ideologies rule the government but its gov policies are most often socialistic in measure. Like I was saying with the africa example, some countries have adopted socialist policies out of necesity while others have done it for ideological driven reasons.

states driven to socialism out of necesity can change their socialist policies more easily than a state driven to socialism out of ideology.

The problem is that most western Europe has only three of the eight socialist attributes that i described above; some more effective or widespread than others. For example france nationalized it's transportation system ( a socialist attribute) but they are small enough country that this makes their economy for effecient, while the US could never do that because of it's huge geographic size. So by degree, most of western europe are not as socialist as the USSR, and others, but i do believe that as long as they have at least two socialist attributes as permanent solutions for their economies then they are socialist.

and messing with the economy is not socialistic, per se, socialism just adopted it. thats an idea thats been around for hundreds of years (roman collegia....). THe US has been dictating the financial world for the last sixy years, yet it has almost no socialist attributes. West Europe does mess with it's economy as well, but most of these countries have some socialist attributes, which is why they are socialists and america is not.

Socialism always fails in it's extreme forms.

If the conversation reported in the OP is how politics is conducted in America, this explains a lot.

Nah, just the "right in their own mind" people that listen to, and take an over-active role in political debate on public radio. Most know how to have a civilized discussion (i.e. no screaming, insulting, and as little interrupting as possible. Though a few jabs can get thrown in to tease a bit :D).

I thought the reason why Jamestown failed was that it was populated entirely by prospectors, who spent their time looking for wealth instead of farming. It wasn't so much laziness as an imbalance of skills. Some other societies that operated a communal approach to production and distribution, such as the Thirty Reductions in Paraguay, did so successfully. So I think that this idea you often hear from Americans, that under such a system there cannot be any motivation to work and it will inevitably fail, is too simplistic.
It's mainly a stereotype (though can be quite the opposite in urban areas) of generational welfare. People that don't work and live off the government check, having kids that do the same, etc, etc, and don't seek to remove themselves from that process.

They are a fraction of the population, but that fraction is steadily growing with every passing year. You must also understand that why we say that is based on the "Frontier Spirit/Ideal/Methodology/Whatever". When we came here, we didn't get much help from the European nation that sent us, so we began looking out for number one. That is one of the main reasons Americans don't like the ideal of social-anything. Why should I give my hard earned money to someone that isn't willing to work as hard to make a decent living for themselves.

We've also seen the welfare systems in our country get abused. I've heard stories of welfare workers putting people on welfare that didn't qualify, so they could keep their jobs. Also more recently, I've read that an increasing number of people are becoming obese after going on the "Food Stamp" program. It's supposed to be a temporary crutch, not a new "set of legs" so to speak.

Based on that long rundown i see this.
1. so long as humans have free will communism/useful form of socialism can not work.
2. the rulers of a nation trying for the goal of communism will become corrupted/assassinated/userped and the direction changed.
3. the ideology seems to be based on static conditions, so technology that allows more efficiant use of the resorces starts messing with the theory before its even tested.
4. the state when allowed to grow to large if not pulled back always falls into chaos, lots of folks die, systems break down, and infrustructer gets ravaged.
5. the system at its final phase becomes like glass break it anywhere and it breaks everywhere.
6. aiming for zero goverment by makeing bigger goverment is a little backwords.


History shows that humans are not made for it and under the condition that someone/something was able to remake humans into the cogs needed for such a system to work, eventually a portion of the populace would change and the system would fall apart. (humans are always changeing with or without evolution)

You know that there are many examples of successful collectivist societies in history, right? And not all Socialism is geared ultimately towards Communism; don't let thinking so cloud your understanding of socialism or communism.

My history teacher mentioned that Sweden is socialist. How is their economy right now? Is it working out?

You know that there are many examples of successful collectivist societies in history, right?
But haven't these societies always been pretty small? I believe that sacrificing personal gain in favor of common gain can only consistently work if the bonds between members of the community are really strong. Like within a small tribe, where most people are more or less closely related.

Thats the essense of the march toward communism (socialism being similar, but not the same, like a person running down a track but stops right before the finish line); making what worked for barbarians work in the modern world. The idea just neglects the idea that civilization advances be distancing itself from those barbaric practices.

And communal projects have worked out in the past, but they have to be by the consent of the people. The only times that this has happened on a large scale is when religion played a key role. The problem with socialism is that it many times forces people to act in a communal manner, even beyond their free choice. I personally would have no problem with socialism if the world had complete open borders with each other, letting people live in the country that most fits with their personal philosophies, but that allows terrorists into those countries, among other things.........

But haven't these societies always been pretty small? I believe that sacrificing personal gain in favor of common gain can only consistently work if the bonds between members of the community are really strong. Like within a small tribe, where most people are more or less closely related.

Native Americans in particular thought nothing of sharing with the early Europeans who came to the Americas. Columbus wrote that they willingly gave any and everything to the Spanish they asked for, and brought more by their own merit, expecting nothing in return. Many records show a lack of a concept of individual ownership rights (individuals obviously had things that were "theirs") throughout American tribes. It is also important to remember, however, that not all tribes were "small." Their size could range from a few dozen to hundreds or even thousands; Natives of the Mississippian culture used the fertile river valley to support cities of upwards of 40,000 for a time, before war dispersed them. They had more specialization of labor than most other American natives did, but presumably worked for mutual benefit (we don't actually know for certain, since they were dispersed before European contact, in the 16th Century, but there is no reason to think their culture changed so drastically). This is obviously not on the order of tens or hundreds of millions, but I think we can be sure that there were many more people who did not know each other than did. 40,000 is a very large university, my school is half that size and I know a very small fraction of even that.

EDIT: Here's that city I was thinking of, Cahokia. It was the largest, 40,000 at its peak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

Native Americans in particular thought nothing of sharing with the early Europeans who came to the Americas. Columbus wrote that they willingly gave any and everything to the Spanish they asked for, and brought more by their own merit, expecting nothing in return. Many records show a lack of a concept of individual ownership rights (individuals obviously had things that were "theirs") throughout American tribes. It is also important to remember, however, that not all tribes were "small." Their size could range from a few dozen to hundreds or even thousands; Natives of the Mississippian culture used the fertile river valley to support cities of upwards of 40,000 for a time, before war dispersed them. They had more specialization of labor than most other American natives did, but presumably worked for mutual benefit (we don't actually know for certain, since they were dispersed before European contact, in the 16th Century, but there is no reason to think their culture changed so drastically). This is obviously not on the order of tens or hundreds of millions, but I think we can be sure that there were many more people who did not know each other than did. 40,000 is a very large university, my school is half that size and I know a very small fraction of even that.
Well, according to Wiki, estimates for population of Cahokia range between 8,000 and 40,000, which is admittedly not quite what I meant when I spoke of "very small communities", but is still nowhere near even smallest of today's nations - let alone huge countries like US or USSR.
Without going very deep into speculations about ancient American societies, I just say I believe that that "collectivism" as opposed to "individualism" grows less effective as the size of society increases. I believe it would be hardly feasible any more in a community the size of Cahokia. Also, don't forget that Cahokia was almost certainly a class society. Maybe "lower classes" didn't really have a developed concept of "private property", but that does not mean they weren't considered "property" of the rulers themselves. We have traces of prestige burials that involved large human sacrifices, plus I am having difficulties believing that "the largest pyramid in the world" was really just a voluntary community effort.

Bottom line would be that Cahokia's meager 300-year-long urban history can hardly be considered a "success". It collapsed for unknown reasons and was abandoned before first Europeans arrived.

Well, according to Wiki, estimates for population of Cahokia range between 8,000 and 40,000, which is admittedly not quite what I meant when I spoke of "very small communities", but is still nowhere near even smallest of today's nations - let alone huge countries like US or USSR.

Admittedly I remembered the number from a textbook years ago (American History survey, god that seems like forever ago), I'm glad the website at least had a similar number.

If the 40,000 number is correct, then it was the largest city in what is today the United States until Philadelphia passed that in the 18th century.

Without going very deep into speculations about ancient American societies, I just say I believe that that "collectivism" as opposed to "individualism" grows less effective as the size of society increases. I believe it would be hardly feasible any more in a community the size of Cahokia. Also, don't forget that Cahokia was almost certainly a class society. Maybe "lower classes" didn't really have a developed concept of "private property", but that does not mean they weren't considered "property" of the rulers themselves. We have traces of prestige burials that involved large human sacrifices, plus I am having difficulties believing that "the largest pyramid in the world" was really just a voluntary community effort.

An ordered society and one without individual property rights are not mutually exclusive ones.

Bottom line would be that Cahokia's meager 300-year-long urban history can hardly be considered a "success". It collapsed for unknown reasons and was abandoned before first Europeans arrived.

Success is not measured in longevity, but in feasibility. Wiki suggests that they left because of a simple reduction of resources due to the large population, like deforestation, overhunting and the like. Just because we don't know what ended them for sure does not mean we can automatically assume that it was a collapse of their communal system that caused it.

At any rate, they probably practiced their communal system for various reasons, but without the political and logical reasoning used to justify collectivization today. I think the ability to disperse those more "sound" ideas makes it more possible. But then, I'm not a collectivist, and socialism is not collectivist. If we were talking about communism then you'd have a case, but then, I'd probably not be defending it as much, either. As I mentioned in another thread, in OT, I shy away from an anarchist position simply because I think that higher order is needed to maintain the system.

An ordered society and one without individual property rights are not mutually exclusive ones.
Obviously no, as Cahokia (probably) demonstrates.

Success is not measured in longevity, but in feasibility.
The two are usually somewhat connected, however. ;)

At any rate, they probably practiced their communal system for various reasons, but without the political and logical reasoning used to justify collectivization today. I think the ability to disperse those more "sound" ideas makes it more possible.
Their system was demonstrably feasible, certainly within their own small and primitive societies (no, I do not use "primitive" in derogatory meaning here!).
The ideas used to justify collectivization today have afaik never proven to be feasible. (I am going out on a limb here, without having read this entire thread :D). So unless someone has already me wrong here :mischief:, I believe it was their reasoning that was the "sounder" one and not the other way round

But then, I'm not a collectivist, and socialism is not collectivist. If we were talking about communism then you'd have a case, but then, I'd probably not be defending it as much, either.
Oh, it was somewhat of a misunderstanding then. It was your claim of many successful collectivist societies that caught my attention.

As I mentioned in another thread, in OT, I shy away from an anarchist position simply because I think that higher order is needed to maintain the system.
This is where we agree. I've always considered anarchism to be predominantly lefty idea, so the "anarcho-capitalism" thread from a while back caused somewhat of a cognitive dissonance in me - and made me wonder: if there is no state, who gets to decide whether this is "anarcho-communism" or "anarcho-capitalism"? Just goes to show that extremists from both sides are complete morons, I guess.

There's been nations with socialist economies that have failed but mostly because of their corrupt and non-socialist/communist governments.

(Socialism is both an ideology and an economic system).

But I'd say Yugoslavia, Cuba, Republican Spain, 1950-60-70's Sweden/Canada/Norway, todays Venezuela, Bolivia and such countries did/are doing quite well with their more or less socialist economies and decent leadership. China despite not being socialist at soul is doing quite well to.

Socialist economies with a corrupt and/or rotten non-socialist government that have failed may or may not include the Soviet Union, do DEFINETLY NOT include Belarus (has one of the highest GDP growths in the world) but do include countries like Ethiopia, Zimbawe, Albania, Romania...I can't think of any more (DDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia did pretty well, don't know about Bulgaria) . Angola did pretty OK I think. Oman did also quite OK before an UK intervention kicked them out.



Socialist countries that were also socialist in spirit and policy that have failed are none to my knowledge. The French Republic and later the Paris Commune failed due to overwhelming monarchist opposition in the form of other nations invading. I guess the same can be said about the Bavarian Republic and the spartacus League. Chilé is debatable. The economy wasn't doing so well but the country was dealing with alot of internal and external pressure before the coup.

There's been nations with socialist economies that have failed but mostly because of their corrupt and non-socialist/communist governments.

(Socialism is both an ideology and an economic system).

But I'd say Yugoslavia, Cuba, Republican Spain, 1950-60-70's Sweden/Canada/Norway, todays Venezuela, Bolivia and such countries did/are doing quite well with their more or less socialist economies and decent leadership. China despite not being socialist at soul is doing quite well to.

I am curious to know why you believe that Cuba has failed as a socialist state. You do realize that Cuba has some of the most advanced medical specialists in the western Hemisphere, and that the country has a higher proportion of educated scientists, doctors, and engineers to the regular people, than anyone else on this side of the atlantic (Canada comes close). In fact many UN proposals have wanted cuban specialists to be used in latin american and south american countries like paraguay, where no such educated class exists (at least in numbers where they can be effective).

The main problems of Cuba are/were caused by the US; the US has maintained a crazy embargo against them for decades and bullied latin america and south america into following along. Cuba was then forced into the hands of the soviets, and when the USSR disapeared, the cuban economy took a big hit. No, Socialism has done many good things to cuba, and even the problems that socialism has caused are not so terrible as to merrit cuba being in the "failed socialist state" category.

I am curious to know why you believe that Cuba has failed as a socialist state. You do realize that Cuba has some of the most advanced medical specialists in the western Hemisphere, and that the country has a higher proportion of educated scientists, doctors, and engineers to the regular people, than anyone else on this side of the atlantic (Canada comes close). In fact many UN proposals have wanted cuban specialists to be used in latin american and south american countries like paraguay, where no such educated class exists (at least in numbers where they can be effective).

The main problems of Cuba are/were caused by the US; the US has maintained a crazy embargo against them for decades and bullied latin america and south america into following along. Cuba was then forced into the hands of the soviets, and when the USSR disapeared, the cuban economy took a big hit. No, Socialism has done many good things to cuba, and even the problems that socialism has caused are not so terrible as to merrit cuba being in the "failed socialist state" category.


No that was the list of nations that are doing well. The below list is of those that have done bad.

No that was the list of nations that are doing well. The below list is of those that have done bad.

Sorry, I must have misread that :blush:. Forget What i said earlier.:lol:

The two are usually somewhat connected, however. ;)

All societies rise and fall. I wouldn't call Rome a "failure" simply because it doesn't exist anymore. There are always factors that act upon fate that cannot be contended with.

Their system was demonstrably feasible, certainly within their own small and primitive societies (no, I do not use "primitive" in derogatory meaning here!).
The ideas used to justify collectivization today have afaik never proven to be feasible. (I am going out on a limb here, without having read this entire thread :D). So unless someone has already me wrong here :mischief:, I believe it was their reasoning that was the "sounder" one and not the other way round

I think we are more physically capable of a proper collectivist society today. I don't think their reasoning was less right than today's, I just don't think identical reasoning from their day can apply to ours.

Oh, it was somewhat of a misunderstanding then. It was your claim of many successful collectivist societies that caught my attention.

No, I was just using it as an example of a demonstrably different value system from ours.

This is where we agree. I've always considered anarchism to be predominantly lefty idea, so the "anarcho-capitalism" thread from a while back caused somewhat of a cognitive dissonance in me - and made me wonder: if there is no state, who gets to decide whether this is "anarcho-communism" or "anarcho-capitalism"? Just goes to show that extremists from both sides are complete morons, I guess.

I'd say over-zealous, not necessarily moronic.

XSaklhjslfaksdjhflakJSHLFKH

Bless you. :)

All societies rise and fall. I wouldn't call Rome a "failure" simply because it doesn't exist anymore. There are always factors that act upon fate that cannot be contended with.
Well, at least they didn't have to desert the city because of "deforestation or over-hunting"- since advanced trade networks (probably a boon of advanced concept of "property" enabled Rome to sustain population considerably over 40 000.

I think we are more physically capable of a proper collectivist society today. I don't think their reasoning was less right than today's, I just don't think identical reasoning from their day can apply to ours.
What do you mean by "physically capable"? :confused:

Maybe this got said a few posts back, but isn't the true question "have any social democracies failed"?

Maybe this got said a few posts back, but isn't the true question "have any social democracies failed"?

Define "social democracy" and define "failed".

I guess what he means by social democrazy is what I have defined it once in this thread (page 2 or 3) and what icarus (I hope I haven't mixed up the users) called western modell of socialism. I think shane is right. I thought about what icarus said why he calls the systems in western, and now also in eastern, europe socialism and I came to the result that his was not quite right. He gave a list of major points that define socialism. This definition may be right, I'd say. He called those western european systems socialism, because they show 2 or 3 of those mentioned points from the list. But it is fact that those systems also show strong capitalistic elements like markets with private enterprises that are also concurents of each other and that own production goods (private property of production good in capitalism vs. state property of production goods in socialism). Not enough the state even tries to prevent monopols and cartells to keep the markets working. This way you find at least as much points for calling those systems capitalism as for calling them socialism. That's why I think icarus' definition fails, but well, definitions are definitions. You can define everything the way you want if you want. That means there is no wrong definition. But I see my argument from the beginning proofen: people got confused by calling those systems socialism. Not only Shane shows me this, also the post about Sweden does for example. The solution for this would be considering those western european system as a hybrid of socialism and capitalism or as a step from apitalism towards socialism and call it social democrazy. I'm pretty sure this is what Shane was thinking of by saying social democrazy. I'd also say that this is the usual terminus they use for the western european systems outside the US, although I don't know how British do it.

EDIT: The users name was Icaria not Icarus. Sorry.

I noticed that someone claimed that the GDR (I am assuming he meant the GDR - German democratic republic = Deutsche demokratische Republik) did a good job. I don't think that's true. If a country has to build a wall to avoid that 2.6 million people leave the country within 12 years, then there is certainly something wrong. Those people don't go without reason. Same can be said about the Stasi (secret service). Sure, there may be positive aspects, such as cheap flats, well educated workers and some positive sides in the health system. But there were quite a lot of dark sides, too. Let's start with the health system. If you have a flu, this system was good. No long waiting times at the doctors and the medicine really hepled. But think of the following scenario: you are a man with a serious diseas, like cancer. Even today and even in the western world cancer is a problem. But there are chances to survive. But even if the GDR would still exist your chances would be zero. There was almost no technological progress due to the lack of concurrency on the markets. This means it will take much longer to develop new medical machines for therapies and new medicines. Therefore it is more probable that you'd die before you could be healed. Well, that may be now economic problem, but nevertheless a problem that has to be considered when deciding whether the GDR did a good job or not.
Slow technological progress was not only a problem of the health sector. I'd say the biggest part of the advance at IT was based on "trouser pocket imports". That's nothing else then copying the others ideas and products.
Last thing is, that there were often almost empty stores because the was nothing to sell (according to reports of people I know). They were running out of goods. Stuff like fruits were really rare. I mean there may have been apples from time to time, but nothing like bananas or oranges or something like that. There is a joke that says everything:
- Why can't the eastern Gemans be descendents of the monkeys?
- Monkeys would never have survived 40 years without bananas.
Not to mention that the GDR has survived this long only because of soviet help, otherwise they would have failed much earlier. Nevertheless the GDR went bankrup. This is way it collapsed. Since the last two years my newspaper claims relatively often that the events of 1989 and 90 were a revolution. That's overly glorified. The end of the GDR simply came, that's all. I'd change my newspaper, but there is no alternative in the region besides of some revolver pages... However, considering the GDR did a good job is simply wrong.
There was also no fashion, no computers, only stinky Trabants etc. People lived with at minimum.

Iceland....

I can't speak for germany, but i can say this about the USSR. There wasn't a constant shortage of goods in stores in the USSR, even though that is what western states like to claim quite often. What ended up happening is that when the soviet union's government directed that certain goods be sent to certain cities in a certain amount, and they would get their figures wrong. This didn't even happen until the Kruschev era, when the Soviet economy had expanded to a level that party planners couldn't plan for every economic need (this demonstrates that demand economics was in fact beneficial to the state in the early years until the economy began to grow more complex). Every time there was a shortage in one city, the Soviets would put too much of the same commidity in another city. One city would have no razors, and the other city would have so many razors that no one needed to use them fast enough to get rid of them. Thats why we capitalists view the invisible hand of the market as a good thing.

Also, socialism doesn't necesarilly entail government intervention in the economy (except that the gov takes inheretance). TO mess with the economy has been around since forever (we can specifically date it back to the crisis of third century in rome), and the US and western europe both mess with their economies, but mostly to avoid recesions (thank you greenspan). Western europe is socialist though because it has many aspects of socialism as defined by the man who invented socialist thought.

And messing with the economy to prevent monopolies is not capitalist in any sense. Even the american progressives who went around trust busting and breaking monopolies didn't even believe that they were acting on the behalf of capitalism. America and europe are the most capitalist societies on earth (each hates tariffs, mostly, free trade, let the buisness run by itself etc.), but neither society follows capitalism perfectly. Original capitalism has many flaws which these states have sought to correct, but to say that they are socialistic because of that is an error of thought.

PS. THanks for spelling my name correctly.

There is an interesting biproduct of Soviet style socialism/communism conected to the availability of goods during that era, that one still can stumble upon in post Warsaw pact countries.

It is the effective amount of power that store clercs or waiters/waitresses had then that shows it self today in some people that had those jobs during socialism/communism. It is a matter of philosophy, they did not share the view that "The customer is always right" or that they where there for the customers sake, wich one is more or less used to in "the West", but rather lived by the maxim that the customers where there for the clercs/waiters sake.

In Poland and Slovakia I have stumbled upon prise specimens of this, like female clercs in their fifties in a enormous supermarket still trying to order you about as if you are some lowlife who shuld be thankfull that you are even admitted to gaze upon the merchandise.

A particulary fond memory is that one of my visit to the restaurant in the TV tower in Bratislava.
We arrived there at seven or eight, after allready having had dinner at an other place. Whilst the cafe was closed we sat down at a table in the barely half full restaurant and ordered pastries and coffe/tea.
The waitress reacted as if she had been insulted or something, an argument ensued, we had to order dinner to be able to get coffe, "but we allready had had dinner", "but this is a restaurant", "please can we have some coffe and enjoy the view?". She took a few steps away from the table and stopped. "have you heard of anything like it?" she asked the other (idle) waitress by the kitchen entrance, "They only want some coffe and pastries!". Our host hid his face in his palms in embarrasment.
Even though there were not enough guests in the restaurants for the waitresses to even seem to have anything to do, they could not serve us, we had to leave.

This is of coarse a dissapering fenomenon, usualy more common in smaller cities. The other extreme are younger clercs/waiters that are capitalist minded to the extreme and who are only there to get money at the expence of your enyoyment of the establishment.

People do in deed need a period of getting used to new systems of government.