There are definitely failed communist states. Everyone always talks about bad examples and not successes like say, Nordic countries. And I realize I’m not saying something new here, but if we can agree those countries are doing well, but argue they’re not socialist, then why don’t we go ahead and implement the programs they have?
I don’t particularly care what the label is, I care about the outcome. I want people to get treated for illness without going bankrupt. I want everyone to have access to education. Every person should have somewhere to sleep. Every person should have enough to eat.
If this was the middle ages we could argue that it’s the law of the jungle, and the strong survive while the weak fall to the side. Today we have abundance to the point that we absolutely have enough for everyone. It’s the system that distributes goods and assigns tasks which isn’t up to the job.
Call it what you want, but I believe we should improve our system to address those problems, and I believe it’s possible to address them.
Well as I said I’d call myself a socialist more than communist, and for many that’s splitting hairs, but I think it’s reasonable to call them socialist. But my whole point was if we skip the labeling, they have elements in their governments that I’d like to see emulated. It’s possible to have a democratically controlled nation that works more for the benefit of its people.
I’m fairly familiar with the Nordic countries and I think it’s important to have a market. Still, they’re known for “socialist” policies like universal healthcare, strong welfare benefits and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund. They also manage to have strong democracies (including proportional representation) without turning into dictatorships like people accuse communist/socialist countries of doing.
What I was getting at is would you agree the countries are doing well? If so, who cares about the label, why don’t we do some of that stuff?
You don’t think universal healthcare is socialist? Free higher education?
Again, I don’t care as much about the label, but when these things are suggested in America it’s socialist. When you point out anything good about the Nordics or just Europe generally the answer is they’re not socialist, and it’s not because of socialism. But we can’t do those things in America because it’s socialist.
In your opinion, are worker cooperatives operating in a market economy socialist?
That’s not really how it works. The fundamental question is: is the state capitalist, meaning a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or is it socialist, meaning a dictatorship of the proletariat? While you can have a worker coop in a capitalist state, you’d still fundamentally be under the boot of the capitalist class that controls the state at the expense of the working class.
And do you consider any countries today socialist?
Microcosms of Socialism, sure, participating in a broader Capitalist system.
Yes, there are AES countries. No country on Earth is 100% purely Socialist, not even Cuba or Chiapas, but there are several countries where the economy is majority owned and operated by the working class and the Capitalists are held not only accountable, but submissive to the state.
That’s not true. America doesn’t have universal healthcare, or free higher education. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund owns 1.5% of the world’s listed countries, for the benefit of Norwegians.
There are definitely failed communist states. Everyone always talks about bad examples and not successes like say, Nordic countries. And I realize I’m not saying something new here, but if we can agree those countries are doing well, but argue they’re not socialist, then why don’t we go ahead and implement the programs they have?
I don’t particularly care what the label is, I care about the outcome. I want people to get treated for illness without going bankrupt. I want everyone to have access to education. Every person should have somewhere to sleep. Every person should have enough to eat.
If this was the middle ages we could argue that it’s the law of the jungle, and the strong survive while the weak fall to the side. Today we have abundance to the point that we absolutely have enough for everyone. It’s the system that distributes goods and assigns tasks which isn’t up to the job.
Call it what you want, but I believe we should improve our system to address those problems, and I believe it’s possible to address them.
Since when are the Nordic countries communist?
Well as I said I’d call myself a socialist more than communist, and for many that’s splitting hairs, but I think it’s reasonable to call them socialist. But my whole point was if we skip the labeling, they have elements in their governments that I’d like to see emulated. It’s possible to have a democratically controlled nation that works more for the benefit of its people.
deleted by creator
I’m fairly familiar with the Nordic countries and I think it’s important to have a market. Still, they’re known for “socialist” policies like universal healthcare, strong welfare benefits and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund. They also manage to have strong democracies (including proportional representation) without turning into dictatorships like people accuse communist/socialist countries of doing.
What I was getting at is would you agree the countries are doing well? If so, who cares about the label, why don’t we do some of that stuff?
Those aren’t Socialism though, lol
You don’t think universal healthcare is socialist? Free higher education?
Again, I don’t care as much about the label, but when these things are suggested in America it’s socialist. When you point out anything good about the Nordics or just Europe generally the answer is they’re not socialist, and it’s not because of socialism. But we can’t do those things in America because it’s socialist.
No, they are not Socialist. They are wonderful social programs made easier in Socialism, of course, but they are not Socialist.
Socialism is a Mode of Production, not a government service.
Point taken.
In your opinion, are worker cooperatives operating in a market economy socialist?
And do you consider any countries today socialist?
Not OP, but I’ll take a stab at it.
That’s not really how it works. The fundamental question is: is the state capitalist, meaning a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or is it socialist, meaning a dictatorship of the proletariat? While you can have a worker coop in a capitalist state, you’d still fundamentally be under the boot of the capitalist class that controls the state at the expense of the working class.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Actually_Existing_Socialism
Microcosms of Socialism, sure, participating in a broader Capitalist system.
Yes, there are AES countries. No country on Earth is 100% purely Socialist, not even Cuba or Chiapas, but there are several countries where the economy is majority owned and operated by the working class and the Capitalists are held not only accountable, but submissive to the state.
deleted by creator
That’s not true. America doesn’t have universal healthcare, or free higher education. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund owns 1.5% of the world’s listed countries, for the benefit of Norwegians.