LightSpectra
me autem minui
Are there any significant periods in history where large, socialist nations were both significantly economically competitive with their neighbors AND treated their citizens well?
Does socialism work?
- Thread starter LightSpectra
- Start date
- Status
Verbose
Deity
Depends on what is meant by "socialism" here.
If taken in a sense of "not modern liberal capitalism" humanity has managed quite well without it for most of its history. That includes "redistributive economies" like that of Ancient Egypt. Otoh finding societies with communal-ownership-only above a certain level of complexity, with work-specialisation, would be very rare, if not exactly impossible.
If taken in a sense of "not modern liberal capitalism" humanity has managed quite well without it for most of its history. That includes "redistributive economies" like that of Ancient Egypt. Otoh finding societies with communal-ownership-only above a certain level of complexity, with work-specialisation, would be very rare, if not exactly impossible.
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
Yugoslavia under Tito comes to mind, and if you count modern social-democracies there are plenty of examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Norway, Sweden and Finland have all achieved a considerable degree of working social democracy. Not without their flaws, but certainly doing better than Russia.
Also, elements of socialism are common in much of Western Europe, although it's often hard to tell if the problems in these countries are either with socialism, a lack of socialism, or merely poor implementation. (For example, is the current state of the UK's NHS due to an inherently unworkable system, a lack of proper support or poor management?)
MadScotsMan
The Ruler of Cattle
Sparta was proto-communist....
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Proto-fascist, maybe- Sparta was organised on a system of racial militarism, far more reminiscent of the Third Reich than the Soviet Union. What egalitarian did exist in Sparta was limited to Spartan males and did not extend to women or the Helot slave-race.
Closest they had to communal ownership of the means of production was state-ownership of the Helots, hardly the stateless, self-governing proletariat of Marxism.
MadScotsMan
The Ruler of Cattle
Not all of sparta, should have cleared that up...
But all of those in the class were completley equal. Actually, sounds like communism as it's been practiced...and the women had more rights then they did in Athens. Not saying much really, but still more
By socialist if you mean Marxist or Communists then Yugoslavia (Tito), Chile (Allende) and a few others did work quite well, but most successful socialist regimes don't survive for long (see CIA factor).
There's a lot of successful socialist countries. Why much of Europe is socialist (Scandinavia, etc) and they're quite successful. And also there's a few proto-socialist countries throughout history - the Incan Empire is the obvious one I can think of at the moment.
There's a lot of successful socialist countries. Why much of Europe is socialist (Scandinavia, etc) and they're quite successful. And also there's a few proto-socialist countries throughout history - the Incan Empire is the obvious one I can think of at the moment.
Verbose
Deity
If Scandinavia is "socialist" then virtually all countries are. It's not as if Scandinavia relies on collective ownership of the means of production of the proletariat masses, or anything of that sort. And the operative word in "social democrat" is actually "democrat" rather than "social", which anyway isn't quite the same thing as "socialist".
Once upon a time, the 60-70's, when the social democrats were still ambitious, schemes where hatched whereby tax money could technically be used to buy stock majorities in Swedish companies, which would have lead to a form of national socialisation.
But in the 80's it was rather decided that what Sweden needed wasn't socialisation but free trade and a globalised economy, so that's where it's at. Same goes for the other Scandinavian countries (except to some extent Norway, which can opt out of some things thanks to all that oil).
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Equality within classes doesn't make it proto-communist- communism is based around the notion that the breakdown of the class-system will achieve equality, not that equality can be achieved within the class system. After all, equality between Helots- the majority slave class- doesn't mean much.
Put simply, while there may be superficial resemblance, the motivation and logic behind each system are entirely different.
holy king
Deity
so are we talking about socialism or communism and of which kind of socialism or communism?
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
I don't have time to address this properly, but I will see if I can drop in tomorrow.For the time being, let me just say that I think socialism "works", but hardly on capitalist terms.
Just to address a couple of topics that popped up.
First of all, the Scandinavian societies are not, and never were socialist. Not even close.
Also:
And you are right, that is not the same as socialism.
Just to address a couple of topics that popped up.
First of all, the Scandinavian societies are not, and never were socialist. Not even close.
Also:
Umm, actually it does.
A communist society is state and classless.
And you are right, that is not the same as socialism.
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
The way i think about it is that Communism is the extreme end of socialism, where no-one is allowed to be an individual, where the government makes most of the deicisons for each and every person. Socialism is basically a less extreme version, where people are allowed to buy what they like, but the government provide the important services to them, ie education, health, railways, even gas, electric and water.
And to protect the wellbeing of everybody in th country, eg, protecting jobs in the country.
And to protect the wellbeing of everybody in th country, eg, protecting jobs in the country.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
No it doesn't.
Just take a look at this:
which is a rather unfortunate truth.
However the rest of the post seems a bit more problematic;
even if this is quite OK; in a historical context though it would have been more than doubtful.
Granted, today there is not much social or socialism left among those who call themselves "socialdemocrats", and from my point of view the democratic content is not overwhelming either.Mainstream politician nowadays are mostly enamoured in this magical beast called globalization or the lass called TINA, it seems.But things used to be a bit different:
What should be noticed here is the rhetorics; this is for some reason hatched schemes andOnce upon a time, the 60-70's, when the social democrats were still ambitious, schemes where hatched whereby tax money could technically be used to buy stock majorities in Swedish companies, which would have lead to a form of national socialisation.
;whereas this:
is just something that was just rather decided. So nobody should doubt on which side the reasonable people belong...
But two can play that game, Jack Dalton. What about this:
But in the 80's the Swedish ruling elite decided that what they needed wasn't socialisation but redistribution of wealth upwards and an emasculation of the democracy by means of implementation of neo-liberal politics as well as pushing an agenda of getting Sweden into the EU to ease up this process, so that's where it at.
It is a bit more complicated than that, but it is to a certain extent true, and Norway at present has much more reason to be grateful to Bush than any other country I know.And that is a statement that really deserves a
- Status
Similar threads
