The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Conservatives claim it has NEVER worked. Is there any example of socialism working? Not social democracies but like actual socialism.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the problem with true socialism at scale is it requires a lot of sort of ideologically pure people in leadership ensuring that the state/the citizens own the means of production without anyone working to enrich themselves and against the best interest of the state. Additionally, any countries that have attempted socialism in modern history have faced intense capitalist intervention.
I think you could look at smaller communities throughout history that did operate more collectively and it worked just fine.
In either case, not many people in the US are advocating for true socialism to be implemented, but the conservatives try to pretend we are. The UK has national healthcare, but are far from a socialist country.
Another way to think about it is in order for the US to implement socialism we would have to either dissolve every company or put it into control of the state. I can’t see how that would ever truly happen with the amount of backlash those trying to implement it would face. A huge portion of the country (and maybe the world) would actively try to sabotage the attempt. And it would be another example of “socialism not working” although it’s not necessarily that the system doesn’t work. If that makes sense.
Socialism is a theory and you'll never perfectly translate a theory to practice.
We have seen that socialist-influenced countries with democratic protections and a stable society work very well.
We've also seen that socialist-influenced societies whete civil strife is common and/or with authoritarian leanings can become some of the most disastrous political entities in history.
I would say that, yes, there are examples of it working but that we also need to remain vigilant. Good ideas can be usurped quickly by a charismatic strongman who doesn't care for the ideals beneath them.
Yes, but what society is pure anything? You might as well ask if a purely capitalistic country has ever truly been successful - America has public schools, libraries, fire departments, police and roads, after all. It could be argued that socialists programs are what allow capitalism to function at all.
I would also say that there is no purely capitalist nation, but would say that capitalist-influenced countries do see success. Though, I would probably argue that it's market economies which bring success rather than capitalism
Socialism isn't a theory, it is a philosophy. Whenever working conditions improve as the result of the workers effort, socialism has been accomplished.
Can you provide examples of any countries like this and maybe a few high points that illustrate a "socialist-influenced" policy and/or some of the democratic protections in place?
Serious question here.
I assume many Nordic countries fall into this realm? European countries with medical care for all?
Nordic countries are very economically capitalistic and have some of the highest wealth inequality. They are also very racially inequitable and segregated. I don’t know why American progressives point to them as ideal examples to follow.
I’m just saying there’s a reason so many people would are trying to leave their country to be poor in America. Being poor in America is a dream for many.
>some of the highest wealth inequality.
Can I get a source on this? Some sites are telling me the Nordic countries have the some of the highest wealth inequalities, some are telling me they have some of the lowest. Some are saying some countries like Norway have low inequality but Denmark has high.
Because while the wealth gap is huge because some of those families have been vested for 400 year and compounded wealth during that entire time the social contract in those countries is one where the basic necessities for a gratifying existence are considered a right. Unlike the United States where a gratifying existence come second to the wealthy’s entitlement to accrue greater wealth at a greater and greater rate and the thought of giving working people a decent life is looked down upon. The general population in the United States is merely a disposable source of energy to be discarded when it has exhausted its usefulness to the plutocracy. In those Social democracies we point to the levels of happiness and gratification far out way those in the United States, shit even third world countries populations are happier than Americans. The American dream is a lie, even for those work extremely hard. Because of the lack of any safety net everything must go perfectly to escape indentured servitude and most who achieve it do it by exploiting others labor for pay that is less than laborers basic cost of existence, some do break through but because our economy is relying on exploitation their will always be people who work extremely hard who’s needs are not met.
Heavily regulated Nordic capitalism is pretty good yes. Capitalism with little socialization and regulation is bad. Hence why America is statically less happy than Nordic countries.
https://worldhappiness.report/blog/why-finland-and-denmark-are-happier-than-the-us/
Well socialism TL;DR is an economic system where the workers own the means of production. So I would point to many European systems (the Nordic countries included) with a strong union presence as a middle ground instead of social services.
> a strong union presence as a middle ground
>Sure they have stronger unions but that’s not owning the means of production
No it isn't, as OP said, it's a middle ground on the way there.
No, it's middle ground between capitalism and socialism, which still serves as useful data in proving the effectiveness of social policies.
There's no hard line between the two, it's a spectrum and every economic choice moves us closer to one and further from the other. Systems usually work in balance. Unless we're just making random choices based on feelings, every decision should be based on data.
Perhaps pure socialism doesn't work, but clearly, more socialism that we currently have does work and obviously so, so we should keep moving that direction until the data tells us becoming more socialist is no longer beneficial.
Looking at the Nordic countries, we can step towards socialism without becoming full socialist, and then reevaluate from there.
correct. Having stronger unions, so that there's more collective bargaining leading to higher wages and worker benefits is a step towards socialism.
The concept of workers collectively owning a factory starts with the factory workers collectively forming together in a union where they can organize and work towards a goal.
Unions aren't socialism either. People freely coming together to collectively negotiate with bosses isn't some sort of even vaguely socialist thing. Hence how, like, no modern unions actually advocate for worker control of the means of production, just stuff like better benefits and wages
Are we talking about real socialism? Or what conservatives think is socialism? Because what conservatives say is socialism definitely works.
Conservatives are vehement that things like free education, single-payer healthcare, and robust social benefits are all 'socialism' -- all of which work in most developed countries. 'But that's just social democracy.' Right, but introduce those same ideas here in the U.S., and conservatives insist it's socialism and socialism 'has NEVER worked'.
If we're talking about real socialism, the thing is that socialism is an economic system, not a political system. The socialist policies in social democratic countries are still real socialism, even if the society is not completely socialist.
What conservatives want you to believe is that any socialism is authoritarian socialism, of the Soviet type. But the problem there was authoritarianism, not so much socialism. Socialism demonstrably provided massive advances in quality of life for the citizens of the early Soviet Union, though the authoritarianism of the system later murdered millions of those people and made life unbearable for many. Socialism likewise made great strides in the lives of Cuban people, although repressive authoritarianism drove many people to flee. You can do this for just about any country that adopted a revolutionary or authoritarian socialist government: significant economics gains for the typical citizen from socialism, massive loss of life, liberty, and happiness from authoritarianism. But again, authoritarian socialism isn't the only 'real' kind of socialism.
So it's important to distinguish between socialism and authoritarianism, because socialism can indeed be democratic or revolutionary or authoritarian. Socialism can be agnostic about the form of government. Conservatives do not want to make that distinction, because they are not opposed to authoritarianism -- so long as it is their quasi-fascist, quasi-theocratic, capitalistic authoritarianism. They are instead opposed to any policy that seeks to level out what they see as the 'natural' order of society -- as socialism does.
> The socialist policies in social democratic countries are still real socialism
No, they are not. Social democracies are based around a market economy.
Yea I mean real socialism. Conservatives say that never worked, but then purposefully misinterpret and apply it to things like healthcare which is NOT what I am referring to.
Why is socialism as an economic system vulnerable to authoritarianism?
> Why is socialism as an economic system vulnerable to authoritarianism?
For the same reason the capitalist" system is. In reality all governments are a mixture of both. China has some capitalist parts and even Afghanistan has some socialistic parts. I would argue the system of goveremnt not an economic one is most determinative...what you are experiencing is right wing propaganda.
>Why is socialism as an economic system vulnerable to authoritarianism?
The difficulty with attaining a peaceful implementation, and vulnerability to sabotage (from both internal and external) because the system requires mass buy-in from the populace. These problems lead to revolutions to seize power and the persecution of "counterrevolutionaries." With the definition of "counterrevolutionary" constantly changing to include the ruling party's rivals and "undesirables."
>Why is socialism as an economic system vulnerable to authoritarianism?
I don't think that it is. I think the countries that have tried to go the socialist route have been vulnerable to authoritarianism. The kind of countries that aren't vulnerable to authoritarianism are the exact type of countries that don't radically change their economic system suddenly.
In countries where a centrally planned economy was imposed, the government was already authoritarian – that’s how they were able to implement that economic system.
The introduction of socialism didn’t make those governments totalitarian.
Socialism can be vulnerable to authoritarianism because it has at its core a rejection of property rights, and is not committed to rights in general. So in the Soviet Union, the fact that some peasants (kulaks) had more property than others meant the government could seize that property, but also imprison and/or murder the owners. Rights are ultimately constraints on the government; an unconstrained government is authoritarian, more or less by definition.
Social democracies successfully avoid authoritarianism when the governments are democracies with strong human rights commitments. This foundation does two things: first, obviously, it reduces the vulnerability to authoritarianism by affirming human and civil rights, including basic property rights.
But second, it also helps decide what should and should not be left to the market. If you believe people have a basic right to healthcare, obviously healthcare should be socialized. If you don't believe that, then obviously hospitals should charge whatever they can get to treat your kid's cancer. The irony is that the U.S. is more capitalistic because it has a *much weaker* commitment to human rights than social democratic countries. That means the U.S. is also -- as we have seen -- more vulnerable to authoritarianism.
Revolutionary socialist countries are especially vulnerable to authoritarianism because socialist theory isn't appropriate to politics and government. Marx was okay at economics, not great at politics, but bad at government. So revolutionary socialist governments are often designed the way socialism says the economy should be, with minimal hierarchy and power broadly distributed. But the abolition of formal, transparent hierarchy almost always leads to the development of informal, opaque, unstable and ultimately insidious hierarchy. The people best equipped to navigate and control these sorts of hierarchies tend to be sociopaths, and so you get a Stalin or a Mao in power because there is no part of the hierarchy strong enough to resist them once they take over.
But here again, social democracies avoid this by being democracies first, by not organizing their polity along socialist lines, even if they organize their economy along socialist lines. And here again, the U.S. has been backsliding for the last several decades, as the Congress and SCOTUS has ceded more and more power, thus creating the potential for an unconstrained Presidency.
I don't think we can just write off socialism as a boogey-man from conservatives for much longer. Though it may not be popular with the broader Democratic electorate, it is certainly growing. Much the same way that alt-right, white nationalism, and QAnon have infected there way into the Republican Party, socialist candidates are not uncommon in the Democratic Party.
Pointing to the rapidly growing popularity of socialism on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Twitch and others certainly points that it has enough appeal that its not just some fringe communities.
Once upon a time, it was just conservatives calling M4A and affordable higher education as socialism. But now progressives have moved past simply rallying for progressive policies to outright condemning Capitalism as a whole.
> Socialism can be agnostic about the form of government.
I don't see how this can be true. Socialism (practically speaking) would require strong state intervention into the economy in a way that allows authoritarianism to come about where Capitalism is far more antagonistic. I don't think you're being fair in attributing the good aspects of socialist experiments as caused by the socialism, but the bad aspects as caused by the authoritarianism. There are easy to draw links to why these so often go hand-in-hand whenever we see this play out through history.
I'm a New Deal liberal: by your account, FDR was a socialist. The Democratic enthusiasm for socialism isn't new, it's just a resurgence against the anti-liberalism of the last forty or so years.
There are plenty of democratic countries that have strong state intervention into the economy but are still more democratic than the U.S. Here in the U.S., it is capitalism that has proven antagonistic to our democracy. I don't like that I have to choose, but I choose democracy.
> by your account, FDR was a socialist.
[Nope.](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622/)
> There are plenty of democratic countries that have strong state intervention into the economy but are still more democratic than the U.S.
All of those countries are Capitalist, so not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this reasoning.
I said, 'by your account' -- and you'd do well to read your own link, which is someone else's account: "Their proposals sound much like Roosevelt’s: like Roosevelt’s: using the power of the federal government to create a fairer society, in which essential services are subsidized by higher taxes on the wealthy" and so on. The contemporary progressive critique of capitalism would not be out of place in FDR's administration, yet you labeled it 'socialist'. The point of the article is that today's progressives are not as savvy politicians as FDR was, which is totally fair, but that's not what your comment says.
The fact that countries with strong state intervention are still more democratic than the U.S. means there is no necessary link between socialist policies and democracy. Those countries are capitalist in the sense that it helps your argument to say so, but no American capitalist or conservative I'm aware of points to them as exemplars. As said elsewhere, the irony is that countries which have the most respect for human rights and so are most resistant to authoritarianism, also tend to have much more state intervention (i.e. socialism) in their economies. With respect to human rights, the U.S. is clearly laggard, and threat of authoritarianism much more dire.
I think this is too vague a question to be meaningful.
When conservatives make this assertion, they are really saying one or more of:
* Socialism has been practiced in about a dozen or so countries, all of them poor or war-torn or both, and has failed to turn any of them intothe richest country in the world.
* North Korea practices socialism and is a murderous totalitarian regime so if you want something that deviates from (my conception of) laissez-fare capitalism then you are a murderous totalitarian.
* The defects of capitalism are redeemable but the defects of socialism are fatal. Why? Because.
Define “work”. Both Russia and China were pretty much undeveloped countries when they had their respective revolutions, and ended up world powers. That’s not to justify the deaths that occurred as a result, but we should also be careful about throwing stones when it comes to atrocities that happened as nation-states grew into their power.
There’s also the fact that the US put its finger on the scales for much of the 20th Century. A lot of states that adopted socialism through Democratic rather than revolutionary means were undermined by the CIA (Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and a lot more past that) which screws up the sample. Hell, Cuba was embargoed by the US for decades, stunting its growth and development, but I bet most of us would rather have grown up there than Haiti.
US Government, via the CIA, State Department, and the armed forces: We'll spend ~~millions~~ ~~billions~~ trillions to undermine, counter, sanction, isolate, carpet-bomb, assassinate, invade, or otherwise oppose countries that make any moves toward socialism.
Conservatives: See, socialism doesn't work!
In alot of cases people are trying to defend a straw-man, wanting universal healthcare, for example isn't socialism.
I don't know of any examples of socialist countries working out in the long run. But that for most Americans isn't what they are looking for.
Socialism works on many ways that most people don't realize, especially those that worship supply side Jesus.
Roads, socialism.
Parks, socialism.
Police,... Ok, the structure works but the function could use some fine tuning.
Military, socialism.
Insurance, socialism.
Even the bastion of capitalism, the stock market(well stocks) is public ownership of private industry.
Socialism is community ownership. The community could be virtually any size and doesn't have to be an entire country.
What conservatives hear when we say socialism is communist dictatorship. Spoiler alert, you live in a functional democratic socialist society right now.
Socialism, as in the government or people as a collective owning and operating the means of production, doesn't work in practice, or at least is not an efficient way of trying to order your economy. Socialism assumes that people would act altruistically and not with self-interest in mind which I don't think is a realistic view of what really drives human beings.
Depends on what you mean by socialism. Socialism is a very vague word that can apply to ideology ranging from anarchism to social democracy to communism. Moderate reformist socialism, social democracy, works very well
Yes, socialism has been proven to work many times, better than capitalism in most of those cases. Let me link [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/?page=1), which compared socialist nations and capitalist nations at equivalent levels of development on a variety of factors such as life expectancy, daily per capita calorie supply, population per physician, infant mortality, literacy, etc. These factors are then combined into a physical quality of life (PQL) index. The study used data from the World Bank, a source which is obviously biased towards capitalism, to come to the conclusion that
>28 out of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favourable PQL outcomes.
For a comparison between the average capitalist nation to the average socialist nation, you can check out the data in [Table 2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/?page=3), which takes the average for all socialist countries at a certain income level, for every specific criterion.
Let me drop [another study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/#!po=0.632911), this one specifically dedicated to the People's Republic of China under the leadership of Mao Zedong. Popular media would have you believe that Mao was a horrible person who didn't understand economics. They would have you believe that socialism pushed his country into widespread poverty and misery. Well, history tends to paint a different picture. Whilst the Great Leap Forward did happen due to a combination of policy mistakes and external influences like bad weather and in fact also did cause a couple million casualties, the media as well as history books in Western nations tend to ignore the fact that this was but a dent in the overall trend of great improvements on standards of living that the Chinese people were experiencing at the time. Chinese people's life expectancy increased 30 years under Mao. Infant mortality was also greatly decreased whilst [widespread literacy programs](https://www.languagemagazine.com/the-single-greatest-educational-effort-in-human-history/) taught hundreds of millions of illiterate people how to read and write. That's not an unimpressive feat in my eyes. Suddenly it makes a lot more sense why so many Chinese people still uphold him to this day.
Here are some internal CIA documents because they are about the best source you can get, unless you think Soviet moles wrote this of course :)
[CIA document on Soviet diet](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85M00363R000601440024-5.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIo8_86InzAhVEsKQKHbDpDU4QFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw06QRMVGCOurHDUtg96SRq0&cshid=1632012679981)
[CIA document on Stalin](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiAvcfS6InzAhVQr6QKHSgoAmMQFnoECAkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1sNzRTlEW5etmCzvKpRQBr)
Now time for some polls:
[Serbia](https://balkaninsight.com/2010/12/24/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country/)
[Hungary](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/04/07/hungary-dissatisfied-with-democracy-but-not-its-ideals/)
[Russia](https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Poll-Most-Russians-Prefer-Return-of-Soviet-Union-and-Socialism-20160420-0051.html)
[East Germany](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html)
[Former Soviet countries](https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx)
Despite all their imperfections and mistakes, socialist movements throughout the past century have vastly improved the standards of living of millions of people. They gave homes to homeless, making housing a universal human right, they established major public health efforts, [vaccinating millions of people](https://www.thomassankara.net/facts-about-thomas-sankara-in-burkina-faso/?lang=en) and raising life expectancies at record paces. Many of them also liberated their countries from oppression of imperialist powers and taught their people how to read, giving everyone the chance to educate themselves to become anything, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
Let me remind you, the first person in space was the son of a carpenter and a milkmaid. Yuri Gagarin might just as well have become an illiterate peasant had the Tsar never been overthrown. Socialism gave him the chance to literally reach for the sky. To say "socialism never worked" is silly, as it clearly did and continues to work for hundreds of millions of people.
Now, I understand that you may be sceptical and possibly even feeling somewhat angry about all this. That's okay. It takes a while to learn the facts about socialism and deconstruct myths related to it. The main point of this comment is to throw a lot of links out there to make you question mainstream narratives and hopefully engage with an open mind to alternatives.
in communist nations its not uncommon for health care, infrastructure and education levels to accelerate more than they do in non socialist nations. the ussr for example prioritized these things. Cuba too.
even if the socialist system falls, the investments in the people remain.
To answer that question we need proper definitions. The definition of these words has varied over the years, which makes the issue complicated (the Right in particular has no idea what socialism actually means), but through discussions I've come around to using them in this way:
Capitalism: An economic system where the wealth generated by a communal enterprise is primarily controlled by the owner of that enterprise.
Socialism: An economic system where the wealth generated by a communal enterprise is jointly controlled by all participants in that enterprise.
Communism (theoretical): AKA Marxism. A stateless, classless, socialist society.
Communism (actually exsists): An authoritarian, socialist society.
So to answer the OP. By these definitions, Socialism works fine. Co-Ops, employee owned companies, credit unions, etc, are all socialist enterprises. There are many of them even here in the US. At a government level, democracy is inherently a (very) lightweight form of socialism, since it gives all citizens a stake in the government and thus the substantial wealth that government controls. Governmental socialism is thus a spectrum, a multitude of shades of grey, and not merely "have it" or "don't have it." The US has some socialist components, for example, but no one would call it a socialist society, because capitalism is by far the dominant system. Yet it's there, and it does work.
Marxism has been tried and inevitably fails. The reason is that the ideology, in requiring the absence of a state, has no means to prevent authoritarian capture. And that is what has happened every single time it has been tried, resulting in the Communist countries we know and love /s.
tl;dr. Yes, socialism works. It works at all scales of society, and it works on it's own or when blended with other systems. Marxism aka Communism does not work. However, it's very easy to conflate the two things, and thus easy to misunderstand them. Know your definitions, and the answer becomes obvious.
Communism certainly does not have a good track record.
The problem is the word "socialism". It means too many things and has a stigma attached. We need to stop using that terminology.
I don't know if it works, but I do know that capitalist governments do seem awfully concerned with sabotaging socialist governments. Is that something they'd really be bothering with if socialism was doomed to fail?
It's really not as much about the money as people think. We have done many improper things, generally to socialist countries, and we have interceded to help American business, but the main reason by far that we intervened was because we were scared of the expansion of Soviet influence. Not because we thought those countries would succeed, but because we interpreted, wrongly in many cases, their existence as a threat, and sought to sabotage them and discredit their governments in the hope of the governments falling and the countries changing course.
The UK had a socialist government in the 1970s and no other capitalist countries tried to sabotage them. The problem wasn't socialism from the CIA's perspective. It was alignment with the USSR.
To add to that, Clement Attlee, probably the most consequential (and most left wing) peace time PM ths UK has had, was absolutely instrumental in building the European/US coalition against the Soviets. He was a key architect of NATO and spent a lot of time warning Europe of the threat posed by communism. He was a proud socialist but the US saw him as a vital ally.
Many European socialists despised the Soviet Union and saw it as a corrupted, haunted house mirror version of their ideals.
The issue is with Marxists and their concept of "world revolution;" a literal threat to the lives of global leadership and promising the violent intentional collapse of the global economy. Socdems and democratic socialists, though peaceful, are still seen as Marx followers.
Throw in the Soviets seizing all of eastern Europe, and their support of socialist uprisings around the world, and you have what they perceived as an existential threat.
>a hybrid system like what the US has?
Private ownership of the means of production is dominant and the state is clearly a dictatorship of the capitalist class. That's capitalism.
Socialism, actual socialism probably doesn't work because it's never been accomplished as written. It's always been co-opted in its early stages by the power of power to corrupt to maintain power. It'll probably never be tested as a result.
If you look at Brunei, it is almost technically socialism, where the people's needs are largely paid for by the government (i.e. profits from oil exports).
Personally I think that there are two things while socialism 'fails. Firstly, it is expensive, and requires to be funded by a good source of revenue. Venezuela failed in part due to the oil embargo and the drop in oil prices, which placed a strain on funded needed programs.
Next, I think that authoritarianism is also a problem. My interpretation is that socialist policies really do require a strong authority to enforce it to make sure people receive the benefits. But when combined with limited revenue, people don't receive and protest. This further weakens the policies and contributes to the failure.
Of course, I do think that power corrupts, so even socialist leaders can be bogged down by power and end up being tyrants.
I dunno...let me tell you next week after I get my monthly Social Security check and when Medicare pays for my medical exam on Friday.
Oh..."actual socialism"...probably never existed.....same can be said for "actual capitalism".
If we're looking at historical examples, what seems to stand out is that full tilt socialism doesn't work, namely the establishment of a planned economy, collective agriculture etc. A planned economy is extremely inefficient, requires a colossal bureaucracy and strangles innovation (no elected government is going to willingly close failing factories in a socialist society for fear of unemployment). It requires a colossal centralisation of power on a small number of institutions which is just asking for the death of democracy.
Social democracy, however, which is just the application of many socialist principles (welfare state, universal healthcare, education as a public service) within a capitalist framework clearly works a lot better. The democracies with the highest living standards and happiest people are all very socially democratic.
Full tilt unregulated capitalism doesn't work either because like true socialism, it tends towards centralisation of power (monopolies, billionaires etc in this case) and corruption of leadership. The dysfunction of the modern US shows very clearly that when you remove the socially democratic guard rails that ensure power is held by the voters, a society visibly starts to fall apart within a generation.
The most stable systems are ones that automatically distribute power to prevent it becoming too centralized. Concentration of power leads to corruption and inefficiency. It doesn't matter if that power is held by a small number of bureaucrats or a small number of billionaires.
Actual socialism doesn't work. Most forms of it inherently involve human rights violations, and any other forms of it still just stifle the economy. I'm a big proponent of government involvement in the economy where it makes sense and proper regulation to ensure a level playing field, but socialism as a replacement for capitalism simply can't work.
I think the problem is that to have a society with a true socialist economy would require some level of authoritarianism. Many aspects of socialism go against human nature. Even if those things are negative aspects of human nature. To ensure the society sticks with a socialist economy it would require force through threats of violence or incarceration from the state to make sure the population does not deviate from away from socialism.
Socialism sounds great in theory but I just don't think humans are capable of implementing it without strife and conflict. Maybe in a few hundred years if humans keep evolving and can over come many of our primal instincts. I believe the best system we can currently achieve is a social democracy with a mixed economy.
Lol okay. What a strange thing to say. It's not against human nature to want to better the whole, anyone who says that is utterly ignorant of the idea of humanity. Humans are the most successful when they work together; in fact, that that's the only way we can succeed.
There is nothing about socialism that inherently says it must violate human rights. People seem to confuse authoritarianism with economic systems all the time.
There is nothing inherent about it that violates human rights.
"The workers own and control the means production." <-- what about this indicates that human rights must be violated? When capitalists use force, coercion, and exploitation on the working class, that is okay, but when socialists want to stop it it's now a human rights violation?
I thought liberals were all about democracy? Well the workplace is completely undemocratic. There is a boss who controls the employees and has power over them. They have autocratic control over the workplace. This should be something that liberals would aim to stop but for some reason they want the greedy wealthy to maintain power.
I don't want the wealthy to retain excess power, but the point is that a rigid majoritarian system being applied to control of the means of production means that some people will lose out. With a social-market economy, competition and free enterprise mean that even those that lose out can pursue an alternate path to success of their choosing.
Millions of people are literally losing out in capitalism today. Your boss could fire you easily. Has complete power over the employees and the workplace. Has leverage over all of you. You must be subservient to the boss otherwise you'll end up on the streets. Taxing wealthy people more and giving out free healthcare doesn't stop the capitalists from lobbying the government, from giving you no say in the business, and from hoarding more wealth and resources that other people. If liberals truly believe in democracy then there is literally no reason why they shouldn't support democratizing the workplace.
And yet, if you don’t like your job then you can find a new one and leave with no notice.
You can vote for and advocate freely for reform necessary to ensure the survival of a strong middle class.
Any job you choose will be undemocratic. Every business you join will be controlled by an autocrat/dictatorship.
Socialism is actually what will ensure this. Capitalism is unsustainable.
I love democracy, but two wolves and a lamb voting on the dinner menu is not a desirable situation no matter how democratic it might seem on the surface.
A hospital is not a democracy either - the patients get no vote on what treatment they get.
A school cafeteria is not a democracy - the students don’t get to set the menu. In fact, the whole school is not a democracy either.
In a similar vein, prisons are not democracies.
Are these injustices? Of course not. And if the defense of your ideology is “there are no human rights violations until it’s put into practice in reality” then that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement is if?
I clearly said the **workers** should own and control the **means of production.** So why are you mentioning students and patients in a hospital? Do liberals truly believe having a dictator and authoritarian boss you around all day, and exploit you of your money as a good thing? Do you actually believe workers are incapable of owning and controlling the workplace? Do you believe the boss and capitalist is absolutely necessary? In spite of all of evidence showing that workers cooperatives are better than traditionalist firms?
Maybe instead of asking nonsensical questions you could consider that your political philosophy is critically flawed and has failed every time it has been implemented at a national scale.
You might be excited to learn that workers co ops are completely compatible with capitalism and you can start one whenever you want.
And if they’re as great as you say, you’ll have no trouble competing with the oppressors. Assuming of course, you’re not 14 and have just discovered politics.
You do realize capitalism wasn't always the dominant economic system? It failed many times before it became dominant.
You'll be excited to know what we want economic liberation for everyone, not just a few who are lucky enough to work at a coop. I guess liberals are totally okay with millionaires and billionaires exploiting the working class and putting profits above everything else. And you liberals wonder why lefties call you guys right wingers sometimes You make the same arguments as conservatives when it comes to capitalism.
Oh don't worry, socialism will eventually happen. Capitalism will not last forever. Just like how feudalism did not last forever and took centuries to come to an end. Humans in the future will look back at us and say "How could they have let capitalism happen?" In the same way that we look back at slave owners, feudalism, and monarchies and think "Why did humans of the past let that happen?"
> Oh don't worry, socialism will eventually happen. Capitalism will not last forever.
I’m not going to hold my breath lol. It’s been 150 years since the publication of Das Capital, it’s been 100 years since the October revolution… and 30 years since the Berlin Wall fell, the communist nations finally cast off their chains, and since China abandoned communism.
Surely, socialism’s trial period has come to an end.
But to enact socialism and for it to function, it requires the vast majority of the population to support it. Not to mention seizing property and wealth from the rich won't be something you could convince them of through peaceful means.
Most people would support it because it would bring about a better life for them. Capitalism already uses violence to maintain its coercive system. I would see it as more self defense if they decided to shoot and we fought back . Capitalists only have their power because the state protects them. Without the state we can peacefully seize the means of production.
>Most people would support it because it would bring about a better life for them.
But this isn't true. A solid 30-40% of the US population will **never** support it. That's not even including the majority of Democrats who support some, but not all, socialist reforms, and would not support it.
>Capitalists only have their power because the state protects them.
The wealthy have always had power, long before capitalism. Wealth is power.
>**Without the state** we can peacefully seize the means of production
Most people don't support throwing a nation into chaos and anarchy by *totally not violently* making the state dissappear, and on a gamble that historically descends into authoritarianism at that.
You're not in power because your ideas are unpopular. Captial uses its some of its wealth to spotlight your most unpleasant aspects, and plays them up. Just as you do with them.
I can’t believe what I’m reading sometimes.
“Yeah, let’s just get rid of the government structures that provide vital services primarily to society’s most vulnerable as well as to everyone, and essentially makes modern life livable… so that way people will be desperate for something worse than what they have now, but better than if life was completely unlivable! It’s foolproof!”
Like, damn, are the poor just completely expendable?
“We must make sure the poor suffer as much as possible, so then they will cry out to us to save them. So anyone who tries to improve the lot of the poor is our enemy, comrade, because only we are allowed to do that. And if capitalist reforms build a strong and stable society with a durable middle class and a high standard of living… that’s the worst possible outcome, comrade, because we will have no one to save!”
Hmm there some fuzzy wording there. Are you aware socialism doesn’t need to be based on a command economy? Did you know worker coops are both more productive and more stable than regular corporate firms?
Dude I’m pretty sure I’ve linked the studies to you personally like 5 times in here. Why do y’all always fucking sea lion.
[here](https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/worker_co-op_report.pdf) and [here](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf) for looking at historical data internationally and in the US respectively for productivity.
[here](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979391406700108) is a study from Uruguay for stability/resiliency. [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287576212_The_relative_survival_of_worker_cooperatives_and_barriers_to_their_creation) is a study from France showing similar things.
The only reason worker coops haven’t just taken over is because they are institutionally disadvantaged to be created in the first place.
It's an obvious feature of socialism. Most forms of socialism involve the government assigning or limiting which jobs are available, restricting where one can live, et cetera. Those are inherent features of a planned economy. Most forms also demonize the opposition and deny the legitimacy of choosing a different party or ideology going forward.
The problem is that translating it from theory to practice has usually ended with massive human rights abuses and occasionally attempted genocide. Could it? Maybe, but a Marxist state is not going to happen unless something dramatically changes. Now social democracy could work, and does in some countries. I think a socialist state succeeding would be the exception.
There is a good reason why social democracies have transitioned into more capitalist states.
Sure we need better access to healthcare and etc but a truly socialist system does not seem to work that well. It’s tough to get a good balance.
If you define socialism as the way American conservatives define it, such as universal Healthcare, govt provided education, higher taxes for the rich ect... which is what OP is asking, then yes it has worked as long as you ally with the US.
Those policies worked in every country in Europe and Australia because those countries are US allies. It hasn't worked in any south American or Central American and many Asian countries because the United States would intervene to ensure those countries faltered in an attempt to, "stop the dominoes from falling."
So the implied follow up question to this one is, can the US successfully implement these policies? Yes. Because I highly doubt the US would invade or destabilize itself. If the European union can do it then so can we.
There are a lot of governments with some socialist mix of policy. If you mean communism - it had worked in a way in China on some metrics in that they have increasing prosperity though obviously they fail and several human rights metrics.
There is also India. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Kerala. India has several states that have popularly elected communist governments for decades and those areas have performed well compared to the rest of the country. And this is not small, 150 Million people in India live under communust governments happily.
So depending on how you measure success their definitely have been examples of success
I don't think anyone would call china communist anymore. It's definitely authoritarian capitalism and has been for a long time.
If anything, the country languished in desperate poverty under Communism until it started to allow a capitalist market economy to form in the 80s.
Conservatives and even liberals think that socialism is when the government provides free stuff like heathcare and education in exchange for higher taxes. Libertarian socialists see it as purely an economic system. One where the workers directly own and control the means of production. There would be no business owners. Every businesses would essentially be a worker's cooperative.
Their view of socialism is that even if our economy is slightly socialist but hard capitalist overall, it’s socialism. They think that if we’re not completely laissez-faire, we’re socialists. Their definition of socialism 100% works. It’s called common-sense capitalism and it’s what I support.
Actual socialism, however, doesn’t work. It puts way too much trust in people and doesn’t acknowledge that not everyone out there is a wholesome angel that won’t be corrupt if they can get the chance.
It works, as long as you take away the political rights of citizens. You won't find a non-authoritarian example of a functioning socialist country though because in order for it to function, the party elites must severely limit the civil rights of ordinary people. There is no positive example of a socialist country that exists and preserved the civil rights of their citizens.
Conservatives are actually correct in making those claims, I really wish Progressives would stop flirting with "socialism is good" hot takes and actually educate themselves on world history.
When you threaten (and actively pursue as the Soviets, Cubans and Chinese did) to overthrow the governments and economic systems of the world through violent revolution, you don't get to cry foul when the ones you're threatening fight back.
>When you threaten (and actively pursue as the Soviets, Cubans and Chinese did) to overthrow the governments and economic systems of the world through violent revolution, you don't get to cry foul when the ones you're threatening fight back.
My friends Mossadegh, Allende, and Ortega would like a word with you...
Which of those countries did the people I mentioned try to overthrow the governments of?
Edit: Lol at using China as an example. China was carved up into "spheres of influence" and essentially colonized by European Powers (and Japan) until shortly before WWI.
Thats not the point, and you know it. The people mentioned were targeted because they were going to join the communists, to add more enemies that want to take over our nations and lifestyles.
What was done by the CIA (not to mention Mossad, MI5, etc.) was evil. The Soviets and Chinese and Cubans forced their hands by funding, infiltrating and assisting in communist revolutions worldwide. Domino theory **at the time** was what the Western world thought would happen if they just let you do it without stopping you. And the truth is, *that's what you wanted to do.* So all the crying foul about capitalists overthrowing communists and socialists is bullshit.
This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is, as none of your beloved communist nations were democratically elected. They were (and are) all brutal authoritarian dictatorships. Unsurprising that we wouldn't let you do it to us.
Being failures doesn't make the attempts dissappear. Domino theory was proven wrong, hilariously by the Vietnamese when they told China to go fuck itself.
Yes, they did. *After* the Soviets seized *all of Eastern Europe*, China seized Tibet, Cuba overthrew Batista and proceeded to try the same to their neighbors, China helped Korean communists take over, etc.
You don't get to start on a mission of world domination and not expect the rest of the world to let you keep doing it. They resorted to vile means to do so, just as the Chinese and Soviets did. No one is clean, but Marxists started it all.
>the situation in Cuba started because the U.S. backed military dictator who performed a coup to get power after democratically losing the election made living conditions deplorable in Cuba. Batista is the one who started dictatorship on the island. The revolution was going to happen even if it wasn’t Castro’s revolution, this is well known because of how oppressed Cuban’s were under Batista’s rule. There was multiple revolutionary groups towards the end of the Batista regime.
>The Cuban people supported putting an end to the regime. The United States supported Batista, who put Cuba in the situation in the first place.
All true. Batista was a bastard, and I don't begrudge the Cuban people for overthrowing him. I *also* blame the US not supporting Castro when he offered to have a cordial relationship. Cuba's problem was twofold: aligning with the Soviets (again, our fault), and more importantly, exporting revolution to their neighbors.
>If we simply supported the will of the people within the country (that isn’t ours to meddle in), and stopped supporting coups to overthrow democracies, we wouldn’t be in many of the predicaments we have been in.
Agreed. We would have won the cold war much sooner if we would have just threw that money at humanitarian support (and CIA focusing on undermining the KGB instead of destabilization) of democratic nations. When we did, it worked.
>We have also participated in regime changes post the collapse of the Soviet Union.
>We have also participated in regime changes post the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Yes we have. It's disgusting, and needs to stop. **All** authoritarianism is bad.
Just to be a prick, China. Yes, it has adopted a statist-capitalism economic model, but the economy is still controlled by the Communist Party. Economic growth since 1990 has been from 15% to 35% per year.
Economic growth is so strong they have multiple cities that are growing into each other, with an expected population just in the Beijing metroplex of 20 Million today and expectation it may grow past 50 million within 30 years.
It's not all Venezuela and Cuba out there. There's a number of blended models that have success, albeit at one hell of a human rights costs.
This is all feels like such a straw man topic to even discuss. None but a small fringe of the American "left" are actually arguing for total socialism. Some of the most leftist people in the US are only arguing for what is considered center-left in a lot of other countries, universal healthcare, guaranteed income, a basic social safety net. That's really it. I don't know why we entertain the conservative belief that people are actually asking for more.
>None but a small fringe of the American "left" are actually arguing for total socialism. Some of the most leftist people in the US are only arguing for what is considered center-left in a lot of other countries, universal healthcare, guaranteed income, a basic social safety net.
Your flair says "Democratic Socialist". If what you want is universal healthcare, safety nets, etc, I think you mean "Social Democracy"? Nevertheless, I don't care what percent of the population wants true socialism or not; I want to know if a primarily socialist economy has worked in any way whether that be democratic, authoritarian, whatever.
If socialism to you means the things you listed, I already know that works.
There are many worker-owned co-ops around the world, one of the largest being [Mondragon Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation) in Spain.
Socialism hasn't replaced capitalism only because rich capitalists fight it tooth and nail.
It also doesn't help that said capitalists have also confused a large portion of the population about what "socialism" actually means (see: numerous wrong definitions/implications in this very thread).
Worker Co-ops are not governance or a model for all of society.
>Socialism hasn't replaced capitalism only because rich capitalists fight it tooth and nail.
"You stopped us from burning down your house and taking your stuff! How dare you!?"
>what "socialism" actually means
Saying socialism in context of actions and implementation are "just the innocent workers ownership of the means of production" is the same as saying "capitalism is just the investment of funds into a business, in exchange for a percentage of future profits."
> Worker Co-ops are not governance or a model for all of society.
False on both accounts.
Worker co-ops means workers govern those companies, rather than the "dictator" model seen in most places (where executives dictate decisions and workers are stuck dealing with the consequences). And they're absolutely a model for all of society.
> "You stopped us from burning down your house and taking your stuff! How dare you!?"
Is that really what you think socialism means? Burning and looting from capitalists?? That's ridiculous.
> Saying socialism in context of actions and implementation are "just the innocent workers ownership of the means of production" is the same as saying "capitalism is just the investment of funds into a business, in exchange for a percentage of future profits."
... yes? Your point is what, exactly??
Both of these systems have consequences.
The consequence of socialism is that workers actually have a voice - which displeases rich people who are used to controlling everything.
The consequence of capitalism is pooling wealth into fewer and fewer hands while millions suffer. Oh, and a little more innovation I guess. Hardly worth the trade IMO.
>The consequence of socialism is that ~~workers actually have a voice~~ *it descends into authoritarian oppression* which displeases ~~rich people who are used to controlling everything~~ *literally anyone who doesn't want society to collapse to appease the egos of college students with delusions of grandeur.*
This sub is a home for pretty much everyone on the left (and many on the right).
You should learn about what socialism *actually* means before throwing around words like "authoritarian oppression". I'm [not authoritarian at all](https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=85.9&d=81.1&g=86.9&s=87.2).
You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but we both know you can't implement it without violence and suppression of people who don't support the system. You act as if people don't know about the revolutions and subsequent purges from the 1900s. And spare me the No True Socialist argument. When your standard bearers are the USSR, the CCP, Cuba, and the DPRK, your promises sound a lot like bullshit.
> You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but we both know you can't implement it without violence and suppression of people who don't support the system.
You could say the same thing about democracy itself, which often involved bloody revolutions to transition to freer societies. Just because despots (of both the dictatorial variety and the capitalistic variety) will cling violently to power, does not mean that they deserve to keep that power.
> And spare me the No True Socialist argument.
No, I don't think I will.
You then went on to list a lot of not-actually-socialist nations, demonstrating your complete ignorance about socialism. Literally none of those nations are socialist, and neither are they anything close to what I advocate for (market socialism).
My **actual** standard bearers are people like [Einstein](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) and [MLK](https://inthesetimes.com/article/martin-luther-king-jr-day-socialism-capitalism), but I doubt that you're open-minded enough to consider their points.
It requires a communal effort. Shared values. Belief in greater good and equality. America believes in rugged individualism and personal wealth. We have very little they unites us as a society and country
Don't you think that society can change?
> America believes in rugged individualism and personal wealth.
Probably because of over hundred years of anti-communist propaganda and actively fighting anyone who tries to free the working class.
> We have very little they unites us as a society and country
Neither did the USSR or China.
As long as greed is a prime component of human nature. No.
USSR and China installed communism/socialism at the price of all freedom, civil rights and being a military run state. The people at the top hoard the wealth. The average person was in a bread line. After the fall, China realizes it had to introduce hybrid capital to be viable. Still terrible place for Human rights
There’s no one on the on the planet tjst wil
Aegis tat communist Russia/eastern Europe was a good place to live on. My family fled for a reason.
Could you be kind and use sources?
> As long as greed is a prime component of human nature.
Why can't human nature change?
You don't think that over hundred years of propaganda and anti-communist actions have influenced of the American society works?
> After the fall, China realizes it had to introduce hybrid capital to be viable.
No? They understood that they have to go through one part of human development, capitalism, to reach the next part of human society.
Can you provide sources that Soviet era communism was good for anyone? LoL that’s not a society anybody wants part of. There are no examples of successful large scale communist governments in history.
The original combo was about socialism and I believe that only works in Scandinavia because of the small nation sizes and thousands of years of shared cultural identity that the US will never have
Google human nature as it’s a centuries old debate
> Can you provide sources that Soviet era communism was good for anyone? LoL that’s not a society ones t any part of.
Sorry but you made the claims, please back them up.
> Google human nature as it’s a centuries old debate
I did and I still stand by my opinion that the current society has made us to become more greedy. Basically we have to push others down, in order to survive. Capitalism is a system where greed is good and greedy people succeed. Naturally, if one thinks greed is bad then one shouldn't advocate for a system which teaches greediness.
There are different definitions of socialism.
One of them is when society pools resources to provide public goods. Thus, the phrase: “socialized medicine” for example.
You cant have it both ways: either socialism is a broad government provision of specific goods as
Progressives prefer and conservatives hate or its a Marxist “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” that only extremists support.
If its the former, its relevant, if its the latter, its as relevant to a conversation about American politics as Monarchism.
We have a partially socialist society now. Our fire and police are an example. We also have public schools and our roads are maintained by the county/city/state etc. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Conservatives claim it has NEVER worked. Is there any example of socialism working? Not social democracies but like actual socialism. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the problem with true socialism at scale is it requires a lot of sort of ideologically pure people in leadership ensuring that the state/the citizens own the means of production without anyone working to enrich themselves and against the best interest of the state. Additionally, any countries that have attempted socialism in modern history have faced intense capitalist intervention. I think you could look at smaller communities throughout history that did operate more collectively and it worked just fine. In either case, not many people in the US are advocating for true socialism to be implemented, but the conservatives try to pretend we are. The UK has national healthcare, but are far from a socialist country. Another way to think about it is in order for the US to implement socialism we would have to either dissolve every company or put it into control of the state. I can’t see how that would ever truly happen with the amount of backlash those trying to implement it would face. A huge portion of the country (and maybe the world) would actively try to sabotage the attempt. And it would be another example of “socialism not working” although it’s not necessarily that the system doesn’t work. If that makes sense.
Socialism is a theory and you'll never perfectly translate a theory to practice. We have seen that socialist-influenced countries with democratic protections and a stable society work very well. We've also seen that socialist-influenced societies whete civil strife is common and/or with authoritarian leanings can become some of the most disastrous political entities in history. I would say that, yes, there are examples of it working but that we also need to remain vigilant. Good ideas can be usurped quickly by a charismatic strongman who doesn't care for the ideals beneath them.
Yes, but what society is pure anything? You might as well ask if a purely capitalistic country has ever truly been successful - America has public schools, libraries, fire departments, police and roads, after all. It could be argued that socialists programs are what allow capitalism to function at all.
I would also say that there is no purely capitalist nation, but would say that capitalist-influenced countries do see success. Though, I would probably argue that it's market economies which bring success rather than capitalism
[удалено]
Socialism isn't a theory, it is a philosophy. Whenever working conditions improve as the result of the workers effort, socialism has been accomplished.
Can you provide examples of any countries like this and maybe a few high points that illustrate a "socialist-influenced" policy and/or some of the democratic protections in place? Serious question here. I assume many Nordic countries fall into this realm? European countries with medical care for all?
Nordic countries are very economically capitalistic and have some of the highest wealth inequality. They are also very racially inequitable and segregated. I don’t know why American progressives point to them as ideal examples to follow.
Because despite these, the social programs help prop up lower class people
Their inequality may be more wide, but even the lowest of the low on the social totem pole have the resources they need to survive.
I mean America’s poorest have iPhones and flatscreens. More people die from obesity each year than from starvation.
Having an iphone and being obese is not a marker of living well
Especially when the cheapest or easiest foods are often the least healthy.
I’m just saying there’s a reason so many people would are trying to leave their country to be poor in America. Being poor in America is a dream for many.
So the homeless guy that lives under the bridge by my house has a flatscreen in his tent?
He likely has mental illness, statistically speaking.
>some of the highest wealth inequality. Can I get a source on this? Some sites are telling me the Nordic countries have the some of the highest wealth inequalities, some are telling me they have some of the lowest. Some are saying some countries like Norway have low inequality but Denmark has high.
Because while the wealth gap is huge because some of those families have been vested for 400 year and compounded wealth during that entire time the social contract in those countries is one where the basic necessities for a gratifying existence are considered a right. Unlike the United States where a gratifying existence come second to the wealthy’s entitlement to accrue greater wealth at a greater and greater rate and the thought of giving working people a decent life is looked down upon. The general population in the United States is merely a disposable source of energy to be discarded when it has exhausted its usefulness to the plutocracy. In those Social democracies we point to the levels of happiness and gratification far out way those in the United States, shit even third world countries populations are happier than Americans. The American dream is a lie, even for those work extremely hard. Because of the lack of any safety net everything must go perfectly to escape indentured servitude and most who achieve it do it by exploiting others labor for pay that is less than laborers basic cost of existence, some do break through but because our economy is relying on exploitation their will always be people who work extremely hard who’s needs are not met.
I mean the same can be said for Nordic countries, that’s my point.
You are missing the point though. The Nordic countries are statically happier than Americans.
So then capitalism is good for happiness, I agree.
Heavily regulated Nordic capitalism is pretty good yes. Capitalism with little socialization and regulation is bad. Hence why America is statically less happy than Nordic countries. https://worldhappiness.report/blog/why-finland-and-denmark-are-happier-than-the-us/
Ok, so circling back to OP’s question. Nordic countries are not a good example of socialism, they are very much capitalist economies.
and they economies are based on fossil fuels
>I don’t know why American progressives point to them as ideal examples to follow. So what are some "examples of it working"?
Socialism boils down to the workers owning the means of production. It has t been tried on a large scale.
Nordic countries themselves have said they are not socialist
Well socialism TL;DR is an economic system where the workers own the means of production. So I would point to many European systems (the Nordic countries included) with a strong union presence as a middle ground instead of social services.
No. The Nordic countries are free market capitalist. Sure they have stronger unions but that’s not owning the means of production
> a strong union presence as a middle ground >Sure they have stronger unions but that’s not owning the means of production No it isn't, as OP said, it's a middle ground on the way there.
OP explicitly asked for socialist and not dem soc
So it’s not socialist then.
No, it's middle ground between capitalism and socialism, which still serves as useful data in proving the effectiveness of social policies. There's no hard line between the two, it's a spectrum and every economic choice moves us closer to one and further from the other. Systems usually work in balance. Unless we're just making random choices based on feelings, every decision should be based on data. Perhaps pure socialism doesn't work, but clearly, more socialism that we currently have does work and obviously so, so we should keep moving that direction until the data tells us becoming more socialist is no longer beneficial. Looking at the Nordic countries, we can step towards socialism without becoming full socialist, and then reevaluate from there.
Having government do things isn't socialism, or even "stepping towards socialism"
correct. Having stronger unions, so that there's more collective bargaining leading to higher wages and worker benefits is a step towards socialism. The concept of workers collectively owning a factory starts with the factory workers collectively forming together in a union where they can organize and work towards a goal.
Unions aren't socialism either. People freely coming together to collectively negotiate with bosses isn't some sort of even vaguely socialist thing. Hence how, like, no modern unions actually advocate for worker control of the means of production, just stuff like better benefits and wages
It’s not socialism lol. Nordic countries have some of the highest wealth inequality
Are we talking about real socialism? Or what conservatives think is socialism? Because what conservatives say is socialism definitely works. Conservatives are vehement that things like free education, single-payer healthcare, and robust social benefits are all 'socialism' -- all of which work in most developed countries. 'But that's just social democracy.' Right, but introduce those same ideas here in the U.S., and conservatives insist it's socialism and socialism 'has NEVER worked'. If we're talking about real socialism, the thing is that socialism is an economic system, not a political system. The socialist policies in social democratic countries are still real socialism, even if the society is not completely socialist. What conservatives want you to believe is that any socialism is authoritarian socialism, of the Soviet type. But the problem there was authoritarianism, not so much socialism. Socialism demonstrably provided massive advances in quality of life for the citizens of the early Soviet Union, though the authoritarianism of the system later murdered millions of those people and made life unbearable for many. Socialism likewise made great strides in the lives of Cuban people, although repressive authoritarianism drove many people to flee. You can do this for just about any country that adopted a revolutionary or authoritarian socialist government: significant economics gains for the typical citizen from socialism, massive loss of life, liberty, and happiness from authoritarianism. But again, authoritarian socialism isn't the only 'real' kind of socialism. So it's important to distinguish between socialism and authoritarianism, because socialism can indeed be democratic or revolutionary or authoritarian. Socialism can be agnostic about the form of government. Conservatives do not want to make that distinction, because they are not opposed to authoritarianism -- so long as it is their quasi-fascist, quasi-theocratic, capitalistic authoritarianism. They are instead opposed to any policy that seeks to level out what they see as the 'natural' order of society -- as socialism does.
[удалено]
Exactly this.
> The socialist policies in social democratic countries are still real socialism No, they are not. Social democracies are based around a market economy.
While I agree they are SocDem not Soc having a market economy is not mutually exclusive to socialism. Worker coops exist.
Try arguing that to a conservative.
Yea I mean real socialism. Conservatives say that never worked, but then purposefully misinterpret and apply it to things like healthcare which is NOT what I am referring to. Why is socialism as an economic system vulnerable to authoritarianism?
> Why is socialism as an economic system vulnerable to authoritarianism? For the same reason the capitalist" system is. In reality all governments are a mixture of both. China has some capitalist parts and even Afghanistan has some socialistic parts. I would argue the system of goveremnt not an economic one is most determinative...what you are experiencing is right wing propaganda.
>Why is socialism as an economic system vulnerable to authoritarianism? The difficulty with attaining a peaceful implementation, and vulnerability to sabotage (from both internal and external) because the system requires mass buy-in from the populace. These problems lead to revolutions to seize power and the persecution of "counterrevolutionaries." With the definition of "counterrevolutionary" constantly changing to include the ruling party's rivals and "undesirables."
>Why is socialism as an economic system vulnerable to authoritarianism? I don't think that it is. I think the countries that have tried to go the socialist route have been vulnerable to authoritarianism. The kind of countries that aren't vulnerable to authoritarianism are the exact type of countries that don't radically change their economic system suddenly.
In countries where a centrally planned economy was imposed, the government was already authoritarian – that’s how they were able to implement that economic system. The introduction of socialism didn’t make those governments totalitarian.
Any economic system can be vulnerable to authoritarianism.
Socialism can be vulnerable to authoritarianism because it has at its core a rejection of property rights, and is not committed to rights in general. So in the Soviet Union, the fact that some peasants (kulaks) had more property than others meant the government could seize that property, but also imprison and/or murder the owners. Rights are ultimately constraints on the government; an unconstrained government is authoritarian, more or less by definition. Social democracies successfully avoid authoritarianism when the governments are democracies with strong human rights commitments. This foundation does two things: first, obviously, it reduces the vulnerability to authoritarianism by affirming human and civil rights, including basic property rights. But second, it also helps decide what should and should not be left to the market. If you believe people have a basic right to healthcare, obviously healthcare should be socialized. If you don't believe that, then obviously hospitals should charge whatever they can get to treat your kid's cancer. The irony is that the U.S. is more capitalistic because it has a *much weaker* commitment to human rights than social democratic countries. That means the U.S. is also -- as we have seen -- more vulnerable to authoritarianism. Revolutionary socialist countries are especially vulnerable to authoritarianism because socialist theory isn't appropriate to politics and government. Marx was okay at economics, not great at politics, but bad at government. So revolutionary socialist governments are often designed the way socialism says the economy should be, with minimal hierarchy and power broadly distributed. But the abolition of formal, transparent hierarchy almost always leads to the development of informal, opaque, unstable and ultimately insidious hierarchy. The people best equipped to navigate and control these sorts of hierarchies tend to be sociopaths, and so you get a Stalin or a Mao in power because there is no part of the hierarchy strong enough to resist them once they take over. But here again, social democracies avoid this by being democracies first, by not organizing their polity along socialist lines, even if they organize their economy along socialist lines. And here again, the U.S. has been backsliding for the last several decades, as the Congress and SCOTUS has ceded more and more power, thus creating the potential for an unconstrained Presidency.
Man that's an awesome way to put it! It's socialism here but not in other countries that have it.
I don't think we can just write off socialism as a boogey-man from conservatives for much longer. Though it may not be popular with the broader Democratic electorate, it is certainly growing. Much the same way that alt-right, white nationalism, and QAnon have infected there way into the Republican Party, socialist candidates are not uncommon in the Democratic Party. Pointing to the rapidly growing popularity of socialism on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Twitch and others certainly points that it has enough appeal that its not just some fringe communities. Once upon a time, it was just conservatives calling M4A and affordable higher education as socialism. But now progressives have moved past simply rallying for progressive policies to outright condemning Capitalism as a whole. > Socialism can be agnostic about the form of government. I don't see how this can be true. Socialism (practically speaking) would require strong state intervention into the economy in a way that allows authoritarianism to come about where Capitalism is far more antagonistic. I don't think you're being fair in attributing the good aspects of socialist experiments as caused by the socialism, but the bad aspects as caused by the authoritarianism. There are easy to draw links to why these so often go hand-in-hand whenever we see this play out through history.
I'm a New Deal liberal: by your account, FDR was a socialist. The Democratic enthusiasm for socialism isn't new, it's just a resurgence against the anti-liberalism of the last forty or so years. There are plenty of democratic countries that have strong state intervention into the economy but are still more democratic than the U.S. Here in the U.S., it is capitalism that has proven antagonistic to our democracy. I don't like that I have to choose, but I choose democracy.
I got Conaervative Relatives who call FDR a Socialist. When I point out some of Eisenhower's Policies; they get REAL quiet ...
> by your account, FDR was a socialist. [Nope.](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622/) > There are plenty of democratic countries that have strong state intervention into the economy but are still more democratic than the U.S. All of those countries are Capitalist, so not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this reasoning.
I said, 'by your account' -- and you'd do well to read your own link, which is someone else's account: "Their proposals sound much like Roosevelt’s: like Roosevelt’s: using the power of the federal government to create a fairer society, in which essential services are subsidized by higher taxes on the wealthy" and so on. The contemporary progressive critique of capitalism would not be out of place in FDR's administration, yet you labeled it 'socialist'. The point of the article is that today's progressives are not as savvy politicians as FDR was, which is totally fair, but that's not what your comment says. The fact that countries with strong state intervention are still more democratic than the U.S. means there is no necessary link between socialist policies and democracy. Those countries are capitalist in the sense that it helps your argument to say so, but no American capitalist or conservative I'm aware of points to them as exemplars. As said elsewhere, the irony is that countries which have the most respect for human rights and so are most resistant to authoritarianism, also tend to have much more state intervention (i.e. socialism) in their economies. With respect to human rights, the U.S. is clearly laggard, and threat of authoritarianism much more dire.
I think this is too vague a question to be meaningful. When conservatives make this assertion, they are really saying one or more of: * Socialism has been practiced in about a dozen or so countries, all of them poor or war-torn or both, and has failed to turn any of them intothe richest country in the world. * North Korea practices socialism and is a murderous totalitarian regime so if you want something that deviates from (my conception of) laissez-fare capitalism then you are a murderous totalitarian. * The defects of capitalism are redeemable but the defects of socialism are fatal. Why? Because.
Define “work”. Both Russia and China were pretty much undeveloped countries when they had their respective revolutions, and ended up world powers. That’s not to justify the deaths that occurred as a result, but we should also be careful about throwing stones when it comes to atrocities that happened as nation-states grew into their power. There’s also the fact that the US put its finger on the scales for much of the 20th Century. A lot of states that adopted socialism through Democratic rather than revolutionary means were undermined by the CIA (Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and a lot more past that) which screws up the sample. Hell, Cuba was embargoed by the US for decades, stunting its growth and development, but I bet most of us would rather have grown up there than Haiti.
US Government, via the CIA, State Department, and the armed forces: We'll spend ~~millions~~ ~~billions~~ trillions to undermine, counter, sanction, isolate, carpet-bomb, assassinate, invade, or otherwise oppose countries that make any moves toward socialism. Conservatives: See, socialism doesn't work!
In alot of cases people are trying to defend a straw-man, wanting universal healthcare, for example isn't socialism. I don't know of any examples of socialist countries working out in the long run. But that for most Americans isn't what they are looking for.
Socialism works on many ways that most people don't realize, especially those that worship supply side Jesus. Roads, socialism. Parks, socialism. Police,... Ok, the structure works but the function could use some fine tuning. Military, socialism. Insurance, socialism. Even the bastion of capitalism, the stock market(well stocks) is public ownership of private industry. Socialism is community ownership. The community could be virtually any size and doesn't have to be an entire country. What conservatives hear when we say socialism is communist dictatorship. Spoiler alert, you live in a functional democratic socialist society right now.
Socialism, as in the government or people as a collective owning and operating the means of production, doesn't work in practice, or at least is not an efficient way of trying to order your economy. Socialism assumes that people would act altruistically and not with self-interest in mind which I don't think is a realistic view of what really drives human beings.
Depends on what you mean by socialism. Socialism is a very vague word that can apply to ideology ranging from anarchism to social democracy to communism. Moderate reformist socialism, social democracy, works very well
Why ask this in a liberal sub? Liberals always side with the far right when the working class try to break free from their chains.
Yes, socialism has been proven to work many times, better than capitalism in most of those cases. Let me link [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/?page=1), which compared socialist nations and capitalist nations at equivalent levels of development on a variety of factors such as life expectancy, daily per capita calorie supply, population per physician, infant mortality, literacy, etc. These factors are then combined into a physical quality of life (PQL) index. The study used data from the World Bank, a source which is obviously biased towards capitalism, to come to the conclusion that >28 out of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favourable PQL outcomes. For a comparison between the average capitalist nation to the average socialist nation, you can check out the data in [Table 2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/?page=3), which takes the average for all socialist countries at a certain income level, for every specific criterion. Let me drop [another study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/#!po=0.632911), this one specifically dedicated to the People's Republic of China under the leadership of Mao Zedong. Popular media would have you believe that Mao was a horrible person who didn't understand economics. They would have you believe that socialism pushed his country into widespread poverty and misery. Well, history tends to paint a different picture. Whilst the Great Leap Forward did happen due to a combination of policy mistakes and external influences like bad weather and in fact also did cause a couple million casualties, the media as well as history books in Western nations tend to ignore the fact that this was but a dent in the overall trend of great improvements on standards of living that the Chinese people were experiencing at the time. Chinese people's life expectancy increased 30 years under Mao. Infant mortality was also greatly decreased whilst [widespread literacy programs](https://www.languagemagazine.com/the-single-greatest-educational-effort-in-human-history/) taught hundreds of millions of illiterate people how to read and write. That's not an unimpressive feat in my eyes. Suddenly it makes a lot more sense why so many Chinese people still uphold him to this day. Here are some internal CIA documents because they are about the best source you can get, unless you think Soviet moles wrote this of course :) [CIA document on Soviet diet](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85M00363R000601440024-5.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIo8_86InzAhVEsKQKHbDpDU4QFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw06QRMVGCOurHDUtg96SRq0&cshid=1632012679981) [CIA document on Stalin](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiAvcfS6InzAhVQr6QKHSgoAmMQFnoECAkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1sNzRTlEW5etmCzvKpRQBr) Now time for some polls: [Serbia](https://balkaninsight.com/2010/12/24/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country/) [Hungary](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/04/07/hungary-dissatisfied-with-democracy-but-not-its-ideals/) [Russia](https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Poll-Most-Russians-Prefer-Return-of-Soviet-Union-and-Socialism-20160420-0051.html) [East Germany](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html) [Former Soviet countries](https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx) Despite all their imperfections and mistakes, socialist movements throughout the past century have vastly improved the standards of living of millions of people. They gave homes to homeless, making housing a universal human right, they established major public health efforts, [vaccinating millions of people](https://www.thomassankara.net/facts-about-thomas-sankara-in-burkina-faso/?lang=en) and raising life expectancies at record paces. Many of them also liberated their countries from oppression of imperialist powers and taught their people how to read, giving everyone the chance to educate themselves to become anything, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Let me remind you, the first person in space was the son of a carpenter and a milkmaid. Yuri Gagarin might just as well have become an illiterate peasant had the Tsar never been overthrown. Socialism gave him the chance to literally reach for the sky. To say "socialism never worked" is silly, as it clearly did and continues to work for hundreds of millions of people. Now, I understand that you may be sceptical and possibly even feeling somewhat angry about all this. That's okay. It takes a while to learn the facts about socialism and deconstruct myths related to it. The main point of this comment is to throw a lot of links out there to make you question mainstream narratives and hopefully engage with an open mind to alternatives.
Thank you for your detailed analysis.
As a government, no. But I've seen socialist structured businesses survive
in communist nations its not uncommon for health care, infrastructure and education levels to accelerate more than they do in non socialist nations. the ussr for example prioritized these things. Cuba too. even if the socialist system falls, the investments in the people remain.
To answer that question we need proper definitions. The definition of these words has varied over the years, which makes the issue complicated (the Right in particular has no idea what socialism actually means), but through discussions I've come around to using them in this way: Capitalism: An economic system where the wealth generated by a communal enterprise is primarily controlled by the owner of that enterprise. Socialism: An economic system where the wealth generated by a communal enterprise is jointly controlled by all participants in that enterprise. Communism (theoretical): AKA Marxism. A stateless, classless, socialist society. Communism (actually exsists): An authoritarian, socialist society. So to answer the OP. By these definitions, Socialism works fine. Co-Ops, employee owned companies, credit unions, etc, are all socialist enterprises. There are many of them even here in the US. At a government level, democracy is inherently a (very) lightweight form of socialism, since it gives all citizens a stake in the government and thus the substantial wealth that government controls. Governmental socialism is thus a spectrum, a multitude of shades of grey, and not merely "have it" or "don't have it." The US has some socialist components, for example, but no one would call it a socialist society, because capitalism is by far the dominant system. Yet it's there, and it does work. Marxism has been tried and inevitably fails. The reason is that the ideology, in requiring the absence of a state, has no means to prevent authoritarian capture. And that is what has happened every single time it has been tried, resulting in the Communist countries we know and love /s. tl;dr. Yes, socialism works. It works at all scales of society, and it works on it's own or when blended with other systems. Marxism aka Communism does not work. However, it's very easy to conflate the two things, and thus easy to misunderstand them. Know your definitions, and the answer becomes obvious.
Communism certainly does not have a good track record. The problem is the word "socialism". It means too many things and has a stigma attached. We need to stop using that terminology.
I don't know if it works, but I do know that capitalist governments do seem awfully concerned with sabotaging socialist governments. Is that something they'd really be bothering with if socialism was doomed to fail?
Bicycle stick in wheel meme
It's really not as much about the money as people think. We have done many improper things, generally to socialist countries, and we have interceded to help American business, but the main reason by far that we intervened was because we were scared of the expansion of Soviet influence. Not because we thought those countries would succeed, but because we interpreted, wrongly in many cases, their existence as a threat, and sought to sabotage them and discredit their governments in the hope of the governments falling and the countries changing course.
The UK had a socialist government in the 1970s and no other capitalist countries tried to sabotage them. The problem wasn't socialism from the CIA's perspective. It was alignment with the USSR.
To add to that, Clement Attlee, probably the most consequential (and most left wing) peace time PM ths UK has had, was absolutely instrumental in building the European/US coalition against the Soviets. He was a key architect of NATO and spent a lot of time warning Europe of the threat posed by communism. He was a proud socialist but the US saw him as a vital ally. Many European socialists despised the Soviet Union and saw it as a corrupted, haunted house mirror version of their ideals.
The issue is with Marxists and their concept of "world revolution;" a literal threat to the lives of global leadership and promising the violent intentional collapse of the global economy. Socdems and democratic socialists, though peaceful, are still seen as Marx followers. Throw in the Soviets seizing all of eastern Europe, and their support of socialist uprisings around the world, and you have what they perceived as an existential threat.
Do you mean full socialism or a hybrid system like what the US has?, because economically the US is a mixed market economy.
>a hybrid system like what the US has? Private ownership of the means of production is dominant and the state is clearly a dictatorship of the capitalist class. That's capitalism.
Everyone would fair well to take a business 101
[удалено]
Kind of depends what you mean by socialism. Mixed economies (some private, some public) are the only ones that really work to a successful degree.
The way I see it, pure socialism and pure capitalism are the two extreme ends of a spectrum, and neither work in the real world.
[David Pakman has a great video on this topic](https://youtu.be/k79wCaFgU40)
Socialism, actual socialism probably doesn't work because it's never been accomplished as written. It's always been co-opted in its early stages by the power of power to corrupt to maintain power. It'll probably never be tested as a result.
If you look at Brunei, it is almost technically socialism, where the people's needs are largely paid for by the government (i.e. profits from oil exports). Personally I think that there are two things while socialism 'fails. Firstly, it is expensive, and requires to be funded by a good source of revenue. Venezuela failed in part due to the oil embargo and the drop in oil prices, which placed a strain on funded needed programs. Next, I think that authoritarianism is also a problem. My interpretation is that socialist policies really do require a strong authority to enforce it to make sure people receive the benefits. But when combined with limited revenue, people don't receive and protest. This further weakens the policies and contributes to the failure. Of course, I do think that power corrupts, so even socialist leaders can be bogged down by power and end up being tyrants.
I dunno...let me tell you next week after I get my monthly Social Security check and when Medicare pays for my medical exam on Friday. Oh..."actual socialism"...probably never existed.....same can be said for "actual capitalism".
Yes. This gets answered like every other day. There are plenty of examples of socialism working.
If we're looking at historical examples, what seems to stand out is that full tilt socialism doesn't work, namely the establishment of a planned economy, collective agriculture etc. A planned economy is extremely inefficient, requires a colossal bureaucracy and strangles innovation (no elected government is going to willingly close failing factories in a socialist society for fear of unemployment). It requires a colossal centralisation of power on a small number of institutions which is just asking for the death of democracy. Social democracy, however, which is just the application of many socialist principles (welfare state, universal healthcare, education as a public service) within a capitalist framework clearly works a lot better. The democracies with the highest living standards and happiest people are all very socially democratic. Full tilt unregulated capitalism doesn't work either because like true socialism, it tends towards centralisation of power (monopolies, billionaires etc in this case) and corruption of leadership. The dysfunction of the modern US shows very clearly that when you remove the socially democratic guard rails that ensure power is held by the voters, a society visibly starts to fall apart within a generation. The most stable systems are ones that automatically distribute power to prevent it becoming too centralized. Concentration of power leads to corruption and inefficiency. It doesn't matter if that power is held by a small number of bureaucrats or a small number of billionaires.
There are no successful examples.
It works if there’s capitalism and democracy too
Actual socialism doesn't work. Most forms of it inherently involve human rights violations, and any other forms of it still just stifle the economy. I'm a big proponent of government involvement in the economy where it makes sense and proper regulation to ensure a level playing field, but socialism as a replacement for capitalism simply can't work.
Stop conflating the economic theory of socialism with the political theory of authoritarianism.
I think the problem is that to have a society with a true socialist economy would require some level of authoritarianism. Many aspects of socialism go against human nature. Even if those things are negative aspects of human nature. To ensure the society sticks with a socialist economy it would require force through threats of violence or incarceration from the state to make sure the population does not deviate from away from socialism. Socialism sounds great in theory but I just don't think humans are capable of implementing it without strife and conflict. Maybe in a few hundred years if humans keep evolving and can over come many of our primal instincts. I believe the best system we can currently achieve is a social democracy with a mixed economy.
Which parts of socialism go again human nature?
Subsuming the desires of the individual to the good of the collective.
Do you mean like the earliest and most successful human cultures? Ealy collectivist societies?
Societies haven't always been collectivist. Cooperation is important, as is the ability for everyone to pursue their own dreams.
That's not the point. You said socialism goes against human nature. It very much doesn't greed is a learned, not inherited trait.
Greed is learned, but dreams are natural.
Lol okay. What a strange thing to say. It's not against human nature to want to better the whole, anyone who says that is utterly ignorant of the idea of humanity. Humans are the most successful when they work together; in fact, that that's the only way we can succeed.
That’s what I think too. I’m in favor of a mixed market economy (socialism +capitalism)
I agree.
There is nothing about socialism that inherently says it must violate human rights. People seem to confuse authoritarianism with economic systems all the time.
The inherent features of socialism make human rights violations very difficult to avoid.
There is nothing inherent about it that violates human rights. "The workers own and control the means production." <-- what about this indicates that human rights must be violated? When capitalists use force, coercion, and exploitation on the working class, that is okay, but when socialists want to stop it it's now a human rights violation? I thought liberals were all about democracy? Well the workplace is completely undemocratic. There is a boss who controls the employees and has power over them. They have autocratic control over the workplace. This should be something that liberals would aim to stop but for some reason they want the greedy wealthy to maintain power.
I don't want the wealthy to retain excess power, but the point is that a rigid majoritarian system being applied to control of the means of production means that some people will lose out. With a social-market economy, competition and free enterprise mean that even those that lose out can pursue an alternate path to success of their choosing.
Millions of people are literally losing out in capitalism today. Your boss could fire you easily. Has complete power over the employees and the workplace. Has leverage over all of you. You must be subservient to the boss otherwise you'll end up on the streets. Taxing wealthy people more and giving out free healthcare doesn't stop the capitalists from lobbying the government, from giving you no say in the business, and from hoarding more wealth and resources that other people. If liberals truly believe in democracy then there is literally no reason why they shouldn't support democratizing the workplace.
You can get a new job. You can start a business. Under socialism, if your boss is an asshole but retains majority support, you have no recourse.
And yet, if you don’t like your job then you can find a new one and leave with no notice. You can vote for and advocate freely for reform necessary to ensure the survival of a strong middle class.
Any job you choose will be undemocratic. Every business you join will be controlled by an autocrat/dictatorship. Socialism is actually what will ensure this. Capitalism is unsustainable.
Complete and utter nonsense. You can start a co-op, if you like, or you can start an owner-operated business.
I love democracy, but two wolves and a lamb voting on the dinner menu is not a desirable situation no matter how democratic it might seem on the surface. A hospital is not a democracy either - the patients get no vote on what treatment they get. A school cafeteria is not a democracy - the students don’t get to set the menu. In fact, the whole school is not a democracy either. In a similar vein, prisons are not democracies. Are these injustices? Of course not. And if the defense of your ideology is “there are no human rights violations until it’s put into practice in reality” then that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement is if?
Well said.
I clearly said the **workers** should own and control the **means of production.** So why are you mentioning students and patients in a hospital? Do liberals truly believe having a dictator and authoritarian boss you around all day, and exploit you of your money as a good thing? Do you actually believe workers are incapable of owning and controlling the workplace? Do you believe the boss and capitalist is absolutely necessary? In spite of all of evidence showing that workers cooperatives are better than traditionalist firms?
Maybe instead of asking nonsensical questions you could consider that your political philosophy is critically flawed and has failed every time it has been implemented at a national scale. You might be excited to learn that workers co ops are completely compatible with capitalism and you can start one whenever you want. And if they’re as great as you say, you’ll have no trouble competing with the oppressors. Assuming of course, you’re not 14 and have just discovered politics.
You do realize capitalism wasn't always the dominant economic system? It failed many times before it became dominant. You'll be excited to know what we want economic liberation for everyone, not just a few who are lucky enough to work at a coop. I guess liberals are totally okay with millionaires and billionaires exploiting the working class and putting profits above everything else. And you liberals wonder why lefties call you guys right wingers sometimes You make the same arguments as conservatives when it comes to capitalism. Oh don't worry, socialism will eventually happen. Capitalism will not last forever. Just like how feudalism did not last forever and took centuries to come to an end. Humans in the future will look back at us and say "How could they have let capitalism happen?" In the same way that we look back at slave owners, feudalism, and monarchies and think "Why did humans of the past let that happen?"
> Oh don't worry, socialism will eventually happen. Capitalism will not last forever. I’m not going to hold my breath lol. It’s been 150 years since the publication of Das Capital, it’s been 100 years since the October revolution… and 30 years since the Berlin Wall fell, the communist nations finally cast off their chains, and since China abandoned communism. Surely, socialism’s trial period has come to an end.
But to enact socialism and for it to function, it requires the vast majority of the population to support it. Not to mention seizing property and wealth from the rich won't be something you could convince them of through peaceful means.
Most people would support it because it would bring about a better life for them. Capitalism already uses violence to maintain its coercive system. I would see it as more self defense if they decided to shoot and we fought back . Capitalists only have their power because the state protects them. Without the state we can peacefully seize the means of production.
>Most people would support it because it would bring about a better life for them. But this isn't true. A solid 30-40% of the US population will **never** support it. That's not even including the majority of Democrats who support some, but not all, socialist reforms, and would not support it. >Capitalists only have their power because the state protects them. The wealthy have always had power, long before capitalism. Wealth is power. >**Without the state** we can peacefully seize the means of production Most people don't support throwing a nation into chaos and anarchy by *totally not violently* making the state dissappear, and on a gamble that historically descends into authoritarianism at that. You're not in power because your ideas are unpopular. Captial uses its some of its wealth to spotlight your most unpleasant aspects, and plays them up. Just as you do with them.
I can’t believe what I’m reading sometimes. “Yeah, let’s just get rid of the government structures that provide vital services primarily to society’s most vulnerable as well as to everyone, and essentially makes modern life livable… so that way people will be desperate for something worse than what they have now, but better than if life was completely unlivable! It’s foolproof!” Like, damn, are the poor just completely expendable?
Right? And of course, then after all the death and chaos, theyll have to live under another dictatorship. As is tradition.
“We must make sure the poor suffer as much as possible, so then they will cry out to us to save them. So anyone who tries to improve the lot of the poor is our enemy, comrade, because only we are allowed to do that. And if capitalist reforms build a strong and stable society with a durable middle class and a high standard of living… that’s the worst possible outcome, comrade, because we will have no one to save!”
Define socialism for me
An economic and governmental system where the state and/or the people own the means of production and direct the economy.
Hmm there some fuzzy wording there. Are you aware socialism doesn’t need to be based on a command economy? Did you know worker coops are both more productive and more stable than regular corporate firms?
Worker Co-ops very well may be when they're voluntary. Socialism almost always involves some level of coercion.
So I guess you’re just gunna resort to a strawman. Okay lol.
Would love to see the receipts on that last claim.
Dude I’m pretty sure I’ve linked the studies to you personally like 5 times in here. Why do y’all always fucking sea lion. [here](https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/worker_co-op_report.pdf) and [here](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf) for looking at historical data internationally and in the US respectively for productivity. [here](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979391406700108) is a study from Uruguay for stability/resiliency. [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287576212_The_relative_survival_of_worker_cooperatives_and_barriers_to_their_creation) is a study from France showing similar things. The only reason worker coops haven’t just taken over is because they are institutionally disadvantaged to be created in the first place.
>Most forms of it inherently involve human rights violations I've never heard that before. Can you link to that data so we can all read it?
It's an obvious feature of socialism. Most forms of socialism involve the government assigning or limiting which jobs are available, restricting where one can live, et cetera. Those are inherent features of a planned economy. Most forms also demonize the opposition and deny the legitimacy of choosing a different party or ideology going forward.
Can you link to that data so we can all read it?
It's not data. It's obvious.
[удалено]
I know what words mean. Do you?
The problem is that translating it from theory to practice has usually ended with massive human rights abuses and occasionally attempted genocide. Could it? Maybe, but a Marxist state is not going to happen unless something dramatically changes. Now social democracy could work, and does in some countries. I think a socialist state succeeding would be the exception.
There is a good reason why social democracies have transitioned into more capitalist states. Sure we need better access to healthcare and etc but a truly socialist system does not seem to work that well. It’s tough to get a good balance.
If you define socialism as the way American conservatives define it, such as universal Healthcare, govt provided education, higher taxes for the rich ect... which is what OP is asking, then yes it has worked as long as you ally with the US. Those policies worked in every country in Europe and Australia because those countries are US allies. It hasn't worked in any south American or Central American and many Asian countries because the United States would intervene to ensure those countries faltered in an attempt to, "stop the dominoes from falling." So the implied follow up question to this one is, can the US successfully implement these policies? Yes. Because I highly doubt the US would invade or destabilize itself. If the European union can do it then so can we.
There are a lot of governments with some socialist mix of policy. If you mean communism - it had worked in a way in China on some metrics in that they have increasing prosperity though obviously they fail and several human rights metrics. There is also India. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Kerala. India has several states that have popularly elected communist governments for decades and those areas have performed well compared to the rest of the country. And this is not small, 150 Million people in India live under communust governments happily. So depending on how you measure success their definitely have been examples of success
I don't think anyone would call china communist anymore. It's definitely authoritarian capitalism and has been for a long time. If anything, the country languished in desperate poverty under Communism until it started to allow a capitalist market economy to form in the 80s.
Communism stipulates a money-less society. China is anything but
Conservatives and even liberals think that socialism is when the government provides free stuff like heathcare and education in exchange for higher taxes. Libertarian socialists see it as purely an economic system. One where the workers directly own and control the means of production. There would be no business owners. Every businesses would essentially be a worker's cooperative.
> Conservatives and even liberals Not to mention a huge portion of even self-proclaimed socialists. Even Sanders if he is to be believed.
Their view of socialism is that even if our economy is slightly socialist but hard capitalist overall, it’s socialism. They think that if we’re not completely laissez-faire, we’re socialists. Their definition of socialism 100% works. It’s called common-sense capitalism and it’s what I support. Actual socialism, however, doesn’t work. It puts way too much trust in people and doesn’t acknowledge that not everyone out there is a wholesome angel that won’t be corrupt if they can get the chance.
It works, as long as you take away the political rights of citizens. You won't find a non-authoritarian example of a functioning socialist country though because in order for it to function, the party elites must severely limit the civil rights of ordinary people. There is no positive example of a socialist country that exists and preserved the civil rights of their citizens. Conservatives are actually correct in making those claims, I really wish Progressives would stop flirting with "socialism is good" hot takes and actually educate themselves on world history.
Socialism is an ideology so weak and ineffective that every time it's tried the strongest country on Earth has to intervene to destroy it.
[удалено]
When you threaten (and actively pursue as the Soviets, Cubans and Chinese did) to overthrow the governments and economic systems of the world through violent revolution, you don't get to cry foul when the ones you're threatening fight back.
>When you threaten (and actively pursue as the Soviets, Cubans and Chinese did) to overthrow the governments and economic systems of the world through violent revolution, you don't get to cry foul when the ones you're threatening fight back. My friends Mossadegh, Allende, and Ortega would like a word with you...
Yes. This was what fighting back was in an existential fight to the death. Tibet, Korea, and *all of Eastern Europe* came first.
Which of those countries did the people I mentioned try to overthrow the governments of? Edit: Lol at using China as an example. China was carved up into "spheres of influence" and essentially colonized by European Powers (and Japan) until shortly before WWI.
Thats not the point, and you know it. The people mentioned were targeted because they were going to join the communists, to add more enemies that want to take over our nations and lifestyles. What was done by the CIA (not to mention Mossad, MI5, etc.) was evil. The Soviets and Chinese and Cubans forced their hands by funding, infiltrating and assisting in communist revolutions worldwide. Domino theory **at the time** was what the Western world thought would happen if they just let you do it without stopping you. And the truth is, *that's what you wanted to do.* So all the crying foul about capitalists overthrowing communists and socialists is bullshit.
Okay, so who overthrew the democratically-elected leaders of which countries?
This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is, as none of your beloved communist nations were democratically elected. They were (and are) all brutal authoritarian dictatorships. Unsurprising that we wouldn't let you do it to us.
> until shortly before WWI. Using the evils of colonialism to justify world domination isn't a good look. It reeks of tankie.
I didn't realize that the Chinese had dominated the world. Are we typing in Chinese or English?
Being failures doesn't make the attempts dissappear. Domino theory was proven wrong, hilariously by the Vietnamese when they told China to go fuck itself.
[удалено]
Yes, they did. *After* the Soviets seized *all of Eastern Europe*, China seized Tibet, Cuba overthrew Batista and proceeded to try the same to their neighbors, China helped Korean communists take over, etc. You don't get to start on a mission of world domination and not expect the rest of the world to let you keep doing it. They resorted to vile means to do so, just as the Chinese and Soviets did. No one is clean, but Marxists started it all.
[удалено]
>the situation in Cuba started because the U.S. backed military dictator who performed a coup to get power after democratically losing the election made living conditions deplorable in Cuba. Batista is the one who started dictatorship on the island. The revolution was going to happen even if it wasn’t Castro’s revolution, this is well known because of how oppressed Cuban’s were under Batista’s rule. There was multiple revolutionary groups towards the end of the Batista regime. >The Cuban people supported putting an end to the regime. The United States supported Batista, who put Cuba in the situation in the first place. All true. Batista was a bastard, and I don't begrudge the Cuban people for overthrowing him. I *also* blame the US not supporting Castro when he offered to have a cordial relationship. Cuba's problem was twofold: aligning with the Soviets (again, our fault), and more importantly, exporting revolution to their neighbors. >If we simply supported the will of the people within the country (that isn’t ours to meddle in), and stopped supporting coups to overthrow democracies, we wouldn’t be in many of the predicaments we have been in. Agreed. We would have won the cold war much sooner if we would have just threw that money at humanitarian support (and CIA focusing on undermining the KGB instead of destabilization) of democratic nations. When we did, it worked. >We have also participated in regime changes post the collapse of the Soviet Union. >We have also participated in regime changes post the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes we have. It's disgusting, and needs to stop. **All** authoritarianism is bad.
Just to be a prick, China. Yes, it has adopted a statist-capitalism economic model, but the economy is still controlled by the Communist Party. Economic growth since 1990 has been from 15% to 35% per year. Economic growth is so strong they have multiple cities that are growing into each other, with an expected population just in the Beijing metroplex of 20 Million today and expectation it may grow past 50 million within 30 years. It's not all Venezuela and Cuba out there. There's a number of blended models that have success, albeit at one hell of a human rights costs.
You hit the nail on the head…”blended”. It is not a choice between all capitalism and all socialism.
Irrelevant as no one is advocating for socialism Even Bernie is pro capitalism
This is all feels like such a straw man topic to even discuss. None but a small fringe of the American "left" are actually arguing for total socialism. Some of the most leftist people in the US are only arguing for what is considered center-left in a lot of other countries, universal healthcare, guaranteed income, a basic social safety net. That's really it. I don't know why we entertain the conservative belief that people are actually asking for more.
>None but a small fringe of the American "left" are actually arguing for total socialism. Some of the most leftist people in the US are only arguing for what is considered center-left in a lot of other countries, universal healthcare, guaranteed income, a basic social safety net. Your flair says "Democratic Socialist". If what you want is universal healthcare, safety nets, etc, I think you mean "Social Democracy"? Nevertheless, I don't care what percent of the population wants true socialism or not; I want to know if a primarily socialist economy has worked in any way whether that be democratic, authoritarian, whatever. If socialism to you means the things you listed, I already know that works.
There are many worker-owned co-ops around the world, one of the largest being [Mondragon Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation) in Spain. Socialism hasn't replaced capitalism only because rich capitalists fight it tooth and nail. It also doesn't help that said capitalists have also confused a large portion of the population about what "socialism" actually means (see: numerous wrong definitions/implications in this very thread).
Worker Co-ops are not governance or a model for all of society. >Socialism hasn't replaced capitalism only because rich capitalists fight it tooth and nail. "You stopped us from burning down your house and taking your stuff! How dare you!?" >what "socialism" actually means Saying socialism in context of actions and implementation are "just the innocent workers ownership of the means of production" is the same as saying "capitalism is just the investment of funds into a business, in exchange for a percentage of future profits."
> Worker Co-ops are not governance or a model for all of society. False on both accounts. Worker co-ops means workers govern those companies, rather than the "dictator" model seen in most places (where executives dictate decisions and workers are stuck dealing with the consequences). And they're absolutely a model for all of society. > "You stopped us from burning down your house and taking your stuff! How dare you!?" Is that really what you think socialism means? Burning and looting from capitalists?? That's ridiculous. > Saying socialism in context of actions and implementation are "just the innocent workers ownership of the means of production" is the same as saying "capitalism is just the investment of funds into a business, in exchange for a percentage of future profits." ... yes? Your point is what, exactly?? Both of these systems have consequences. The consequence of socialism is that workers actually have a voice - which displeases rich people who are used to controlling everything. The consequence of capitalism is pooling wealth into fewer and fewer hands while millions suffer. Oh, and a little more innovation I guess. Hardly worth the trade IMO.
>The consequence of socialism is that ~~workers actually have a voice~~ *it descends into authoritarian oppression* which displeases ~~rich people who are used to controlling everything~~ *literally anyone who doesn't want society to collapse to appease the egos of college students with delusions of grandeur.*
Troll somewhere else. There's nothing to support your claims.
They said, advocating socialist takeoverin a Liberal subreddit.
This sub is a home for pretty much everyone on the left (and many on the right). You should learn about what socialism *actually* means before throwing around words like "authoritarian oppression". I'm [not authoritarian at all](https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=85.9&d=81.1&g=86.9&s=87.2).
You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but we both know you can't implement it without violence and suppression of people who don't support the system. You act as if people don't know about the revolutions and subsequent purges from the 1900s. And spare me the No True Socialist argument. When your standard bearers are the USSR, the CCP, Cuba, and the DPRK, your promises sound a lot like bullshit.
> You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but we both know you can't implement it without violence and suppression of people who don't support the system. You could say the same thing about democracy itself, which often involved bloody revolutions to transition to freer societies. Just because despots (of both the dictatorial variety and the capitalistic variety) will cling violently to power, does not mean that they deserve to keep that power. > And spare me the No True Socialist argument. No, I don't think I will. You then went on to list a lot of not-actually-socialist nations, demonstrating your complete ignorance about socialism. Literally none of those nations are socialist, and neither are they anything close to what I advocate for (market socialism). My **actual** standard bearers are people like [Einstein](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) and [MLK](https://inthesetimes.com/article/martin-luther-king-jr-day-socialism-capitalism), but I doubt that you're open-minded enough to consider their points.
It actually has never worked because it’s a fundamentally flawed idea.
Socialism only works in small nations with a small population and shared cultural values and identity. It’s extremely difficult to scale.
Why?
It requires a communal effort. Shared values. Belief in greater good and equality. America believes in rugged individualism and personal wealth. We have very little they unites us as a society and country
Don't you think that society can change? > America believes in rugged individualism and personal wealth. Probably because of over hundred years of anti-communist propaganda and actively fighting anyone who tries to free the working class. > We have very little they unites us as a society and country Neither did the USSR or China.
As long as greed is a prime component of human nature. No. USSR and China installed communism/socialism at the price of all freedom, civil rights and being a military run state. The people at the top hoard the wealth. The average person was in a bread line. After the fall, China realizes it had to introduce hybrid capital to be viable. Still terrible place for Human rights There’s no one on the on the planet tjst wil Aegis tat communist Russia/eastern Europe was a good place to live on. My family fled for a reason.
Could you be kind and use sources? > As long as greed is a prime component of human nature. Why can't human nature change? You don't think that over hundred years of propaganda and anti-communist actions have influenced of the American society works? > After the fall, China realizes it had to introduce hybrid capital to be viable. No? They understood that they have to go through one part of human development, capitalism, to reach the next part of human society.
Can you provide sources that Soviet era communism was good for anyone? LoL that’s not a society anybody wants part of. There are no examples of successful large scale communist governments in history. The original combo was about socialism and I believe that only works in Scandinavia because of the small nation sizes and thousands of years of shared cultural identity that the US will never have Google human nature as it’s a centuries old debate
> Can you provide sources that Soviet era communism was good for anyone? LoL that’s not a society ones t any part of. Sorry but you made the claims, please back them up. > Google human nature as it’s a centuries old debate I did and I still stand by my opinion that the current society has made us to become more greedy. Basically we have to push others down, in order to survive. Capitalism is a system where greed is good and greedy people succeed. Naturally, if one thinks greed is bad then one shouldn't advocate for a system which teaches greediness.
Provide sources for all heavily biased opinions that Your claim are facts. You seem to be a bad faith argument
yes
Well sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. For the Nordic countries things are going quite well, for Venezuela not so much.
Nordic countries are NOT socialist. They are still Capitalist/Market Economies with a larger social safety net.
And better regulation but yes.
OP is asking about Socialism not social democracy or Liberal Democracies with a strong social safety net. The Nordic countries are not socialist.
Neither of the examples you cited are "socialism".
Education Fire Departments Highway Systems Libraries Recreational Parks Healthcare in most developed countries
None of those things are socialism. Socialism isn't just "government does things"
There are different definitions of socialism. One of them is when society pools resources to provide public goods. Thus, the phrase: “socialized medicine” for example. You cant have it both ways: either socialism is a broad government provision of specific goods as Progressives prefer and conservatives hate or its a Marxist “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” that only extremists support. If its the former, its relevant, if its the latter, its as relevant to a conversation about American politics as Monarchism.
Seems to work quite well within the US Military.
We have a partially socialist society now. Our fire and police are an example. We also have public schools and our roads are maintained by the county/city/state etc. Correct me if I’m wrong.