Does socialism work?

[Verbose]

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 and ;
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

At least we agree that Sweden is in no shape of form "socialist".

Don't quite know about you, but I rather think Sweden looks more like the honour student of the academy of internationalised late-industrial market economy these days, which is something very different. As to how well or badly Sweden is doing as such, everyone can decide for themselves.

(I'm one of those impressed enough by the capacity of producing wealth of the market economy, to think we can try to deal with the attendant problems of the system as they manifest themselves.)

And I actually agree with the way you presented the late 80's, as a coming together of the Swedish "senior statesmen of finance", who consciously went lobbying hard to instill a "crisis consciousness" in the Swedish public to pave the way for opening up the Swedish national economy to international competition.

Of course it would have been a good thing if the politicians eventually doing the dirty deed had at the time actually understood what this would entail (from low unemployment - high inflation/interest rates to high unemployment - low inflation/interest rates), which they didn't... At least it would have ensured the relevance of the political process at the time.

Whatever Sweden is these days, "socialist" sure ain't one of them.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

That's simply not true. True communism is an anarchist ideology, there's no government to speak of, let alone an oppressive one.
And I'm not communist, I just happen to know what it is.

 

[Tannertu]

The Indian state of Kerala has had a democratically elected communist/socialist government since 1957.

 

[West 36]

That's simply not true. True communism is an anarchist ideology, there's no government to speak of, let alone an oppressive one.
And I'm not communist, I just happen to know what it is.

That's more the product of communism though, isn't it? Once the means of production are controlled by the state-which is the people- then the state itself disintegrates into anarchy, but it must go through that process first. And I think Joe may have been referring more-or-less to Soviet or Chinese communism, which is, of course, not communism, and just makes labeling communists as evil easier, as it connotes those systems.
Anyway, some Native American societies had socialist-esque 'governments'. Everyone was equal, had a voice, had food, etc. Sparta was not communist, btw, because, as been said, equality in one class is the opposite of communism, which wants to abolish that whole idea. And here I have talked more about communism than socialism... so I guess, getting to the OP, does socialism work? Well... I probably have a bias in that respect.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's more the product of communism though, isn't it? Once the means of production are controlled by the state-which is the people- then the state itself disintegrates into anarchy, but it must go through that process first.

Well, traditionally socialism- the statist phase- and communism- the anarchist phase- are seen as distinct, with the latter being the product of the former. The ideology as a whole can be called "communism", but, in the Marxist view, it refers to a specific economic system. While it's true that Marxist do favour statist policies, the ideology is, in the long run, anarcho-syndicalist.
Either way, communists- real ones, least- do not advocate the sort of totalitarianism that Joe implied.

 

[holy king]

Well, traditionally socialism- the statist phase- and communism- the anarchist phase- are seen as distinct, with the latter being the product of the former. The ideology as a whole can be called "communism", but, in the Marxist view, it refers to a specific economic system. While it's true that Marxist do favour statist policies, the ideology is, in the long run, anarcho-syndicalist.
Either way, communists- real ones, least- do not advocate the sort of totalitarianism that Joe implied.

i think marx's theory that the state would just die slowly was contradicted by history. the problem is how take over power without taking over power.

 

[Traitorfish]

i think marx's theory that the state would just die slowly was contradicted by history.

But Marx predicated that a socialist state would emerge from a developed capitalist one, not a feudal one such as Russia, so the USSR doesn't fit into Marx's theory anyway. So far, all major revolutions have been in largely rural nations, often without a significant working class. The only exception is Cuba, where the plantation system created a rural working class- as opposed to peasantry- but even this does not equate to the industrial proletariat of Marxism. Marx always believed that France or Britain would be the first to undergo the change to socialism.
Of course, it's valid to say that history has contradicted him on this point, but that's a different issue.

As I said, I'm not a communist, let alone a Marxist. I'm merely a pedant.

 

[JohnRM]

Are there any significant periods in history where large, socialist nations were both significantly economically competitive with their neighbors AND treated their citizens well?

What do you define as "what works"? In my opinion the duty of a state is to protect the freedoms of its citizens. If the state usurps the freedom of the people in order to provide other supposed benefits, then this state has not worked, in my opinion.

 

[Shibbyman]

Marx always believed that France or Britain would be the first to undergo the change to socialism.
Of course, it's valid to say that history has contradicted him on this point, but that's a different issue.

You could argue that the "welfare state" that emerged in the UK after WWII is a sort of prophecy fulfilled.

 

[Traitorfish]

You could argue that the "welfare state" that emerged in the UK after WWII is a sort of prophecy fulfilled.

Well, it's true that post-war labour policies were a move in that direction, but the UK never became the socialist state Marx envisioned. There's various reasons for this- Cold War paranoia among them- but, whether or not history has invalidated Marx's predictions, it's yet to validate them sufficiently.
As I said, closest we have is Cuba, and that was not quite the urban revolution Marx required, nor did it become the social democracy he predicted.

 

[luiz]

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).

Allende was succesful?
Jesus Christ, you sure have low standards. His government was a catastrophe in every aspect.

More on topic, as Plotinus mentioned, socialism is a very vague term. It is obvious that if we define socialism as the scandinavian model, as some here do, than it for sure works. It may not be the best model avaiable, but it has been around for decades without any major crisis (though it might face one in the future).

If we define it in the more strict sense of communal ownership of the means of production, than I'd say it would be pretty hard to have a functioning, post-industrial socialist society. Of course, pre-industrial societies can have a communal system.

 

[Verbose]

It is obvious that if we define socialism as the scandinavian model, as some here do, than it for sure works. It may not be the best model avaiable, but it has been around for decades without any major crisis (though it might face one in the future).

The Scandinavian countries all differ slightly.

At least in the case of Sweden, if you check out the events around 1992, you will find a whopass huge crisis. Technically it was about Germany having to pay for reuniting, which meant calling in outstanding loans, with Sweden having interests rates pegged 4-5% above the OECD average, and poised to get hurt. This was due to Swedish politics favouring zero unemployment over combatting inflation, which was in the 10% range at the time. Unemployment was just "friction" though, i.e. people in between jobs.
So in 1992 there was a crunch, and Sweden was essentially brought into line with "the program" of the rest of Europe, which is fight inflation, keep interestrates down, and well, high unemployment (15%) is just a fact of life. It has been pointed out that had Sweden reacted like say, Argentina, the crisis might have become more like Argentina's as well; more profound and long-lasting. As it were, the Soc. Dem. party in power scotched all their traditional precepts and went hell for leather towards agressive fiscal management, which meant Sweden had two years of negatibe GDP growth, but then swung back to having 3+% growth the last 14 years or so. Unemployment is eventually down too.

Denmark has been a normal continental European country in this respect since the 80's. Swedes used to shudder at the Danish unemployment rates, until they got them themselves. At the moment otoh Denmark is absolutely booming.

Finland is also a bit weird. It couldn't afford a welfare system like Sweden for a long time during the post WWII-era. Something about forking over a large part of the Finnish GDP to the Soviets in reperations for the war... But then again the SU was a major trading partner. Which meant that Finland lost something like 20% of its foreign export over night when it collapsed. That's a nightmare for any country. In Finland it brough back unemployment in the 20% range, breadlines and all. And this was in the early 90's. But then the IT-revolution kicked of, with a mean and hungry Finland poised to benefit, so at present there's no real worry. (Except perhaps the general about dependancy on one huge corporation; Nokia.)

And Norway has at least the limited luxury of defying some of the precepts of the modern internationalised market economy due to gobs and gobs of oil.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Are there any significant periods in history where large, socialist nations were both significantly economically competitive with their neighbors AND treated their citizens well?

There was a time where Socialism was working well (Eugene Debs --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_v_debs-- , but he never had a entire government, ran for President of the United States though!) but the purpose of Socialism is try to destroy the upper class and share everything evenly throughout the nation, give healthcare and education to everyone, a reason why for why Socialist Countries werent rich is because their purpose is NOT FOR MONEY, that is the purpose of Capitalism (which doesnt guarantee Healthcare/Education/Equality)

 

[Emperor2]

Weather or not socialism works depends much too much on the variables. The position of the country at the time socialism is adopted- poor countries neeed socialism to advance to a bright Capitalist future. There's also the size of the country- smaller countries, like Switzerland, do much better then large countries like Russia or China* because the amount of buisness intervention is so small, because there are so few buisnesses in such a small country. Weather or not socialism works is much too broad a question, there are too many varying factors.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Weather or not socialism works depends much too much on the variables. The position of the country at the time socialism is adopted- poor countries neeed socialism to advance to a bright Capitalist future. There's also the size of the country- smaller countries, like Switzerland, do much better then large countries like Russia or China* because the amount of buisness intervention is so small, because there are so few buisnesses in such a small country. Weather or not socialism works is much too broad a question, there are too many varying factors.

Hmm, but eventually a capitalist government will have to turn into a Socialist Government to reach a true "Utopian" state government

 

[LightSpectra]

Hmm, but eventually a capitalist government will have to turn into a Socialist Government to reach a true "Utopian" state government

Utopian government is an oxymoron.

The closer you get to state intervention means the further way you're getting from utopia. Think about it. More control you need to place on the people means it's that much less than perfect.

but the purpose of Socialism is try to destroy the upper class and share everything evenly throughout the nation, give healthcare and education to everyone, a reason why for why Socialist Countries werent rich is because their purpose is NOT FOR MONEY, that is the purpose of Capitalism

If the nation isn't making enough money, it'll eventually fall behind nearby economies and collapse on its own. Meaning it doesn't work.

Furthermore, the countries with the highest living conditions are those that have the most free markets (and thus, the highest incomes, and thus, more money to buy things to help people). Check: the Republic of Ireland.

 

[Elrohir]

Are there any significant periods in history where large, socialist nations were both significantly economically competitive with their neighbors AND treated their citizens well?

Before we can answer that question, we need to know what you mean by "socialism". Do you mean Soviet style communism? Or just heavy government interference like in modern day Sweden? Or just a little bit, like the US has today? You need to qualify what you mean by socialism before we can say.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Utopian government is an oxymoron.

The closer you get to state intervention means the further way you're getting from utopia. Think about it. More control you need to place on the people means it's that much less than perfect.

But if u keep a good control (by propaganda, Secret Police, Military Police, Media, ect) over the people, there will be second thoughts before someone does a crime or the more "bad seeds" that are "removed" from the government, thus crushing the chances of rebelling/revolts

If the nation isn't making enough money, it'll eventually fall behind nearby economies and collapse on its own. Meaning it doesn't work.

Furthermore, the countries with the highest living conditions are those that have the most free markets (and thus, the highest incomes, and thus, more money to buy things to help people). Check: the Republic of Ireland.

Eventually a Socialistic Utopia wont need any forms of money (if it doesnt have any Capitalist Competitors), think about it, Socialist Utopia = No Hunger (because itll all be divided evenly), No Disease (Healthcare affordable/free), No Money (I already explained)

 

[West 36]

Weather or not socialism works depends much too much on the variables. The position of the country at the time socialism is adopted- poor countries neeed socialism to advance to a bright Capitalist future. There's also the size of the country- smaller countries, like Switzerland, do much better then large countries like Russia or China* because the amount of buisness intervention is so small, because there are so few buisnesses in such a small country. Weather or not socialism works is much too broad a question, there are too many varying factors.

socialism for the advancement of a 'bright' capitalist future? That's not what they're thinking about usually

Utopian government is an oxymoron.

The closer you get to state intervention means the further way you're getting from utopia. Think about it. More control you need to place on the people means it's that much less than perfect.

Well, as far as control, they mean control of the market so that people aren't being exploited by others, which would make them less free.

But if u keep a good control (by propaganda, Secret Police, Military Police, Media, ect) over the people, there will be second thoughts before someone does a crime


Eventually a Socialistic Utopia wont need any forms of money (if it doesnt have any Capitalist Competitors), think about it, Socialist Utopia = No Hunger (because itll all be divided evenly), No Disease (Healthcare affordable/free), No Money (I already explained)

What you said at first is a dystopia, or as I call it, hell on earth, that is not, at least in my opinion, what I want to live in, 'good control' shouldn't over ride our freedoms as living things.
The second statement is more agreeable, though far off, the whole 'no money, no hunger, no disease' is beautiful, but in the end, that's not necessarily socialism but what people in general would like to see.

 

[Plotinus]

Utopian government is an oxymoron.

The closer you get to state intervention means the further way you're getting from utopia. Think about it. More control you need to place on the people means it's that much less than perfect.

That's a poor argument. If measure X is required and enacted, that generally indicates that things are better with measure X than without it. If I have to fix my car, that means that my car is better fixed than unfixed. You seem to be arguing in the opposite direction: if I have to fix my car, that means my car is better off without being fixed! So in this case, if the government needs to have more control over the people, that doesn't show that things are worse with that control - it shows that things would probably be bad without it. For example, the government says that murder is illegal and if commit murder you will be punished. The fact that the government needs to intervene in our lives in that way doesn't indicate that we'd be better off without them doing so; on the contrary, it indicates that we'd be worse off.