17 ms·

I highly recommend reading Life and Death in Shanghai by Nien Cheng [0]. It's a factual, first-hand account of the China's Cultural Revolution and what living i

by seibelj 10y ago

I highly recommend reading Life and Death in Shanghai by Nien Cheng [0]. It's a factual, first-hand account of the China's Cultural Revolution and what living in a communist / socialist society is really like from an educated person's perspective. My inlaws escaped Saigon when it fell and say the picture is very accurate. The socialist downfall of countries are all unique, but follow similar paths. I encourage people to understand the causes of them and how brutal and arbitrary these governments are. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Death_in_Shanghai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Death_in_Shanghai

tptacek 10y ago
I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. Presumably, the real problem we're talking about is state-controlled economies, regardless of the ideologies that set them up.
- awt 10y ago
  Would you agree that the term collectivist encompasses both communism and socialism?
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Depends on your definition of socialism. If you mean "all the means of production are owned by the state", then yes, that probably counts as collectivist. But if by "socialism", you mean "what goes by that label in Scandanavia", then probably no, "collectivist" doesn't fit. It's just somewhat more government services than the US has, at the price of somewhat higher taxes.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      "Somewhat higher" as a euphemism for "half again more"
      - danielweber 10y ago
        He used "somewhat higher" twice. While I'd personally prefer smaller government, paying 50% more for 50% more services isn't nuts.
    - awt 10y ago
      Right which is why I prefer to use collectivism which is prioritizing the group over the individual and would seem to subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        You sound like you think you're agreeing with me, but you're not. I'm saying that socialism, as practiced in Scandanavia, is not collectivist. That means that, no, collectivism does not "subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give".
        zo1 10y ago
        Taking X% of an individual's outcome and putting it into a pool for the collective good sure sounds pretty close to: "Collective ownership of the means to production". Doubly-so if that X is more than 50, as that means you are working more for others or the collective than you are for yourself. Any who, I really think the definition of "Socialism" and "Socialist" require an overhaul in our current societal climate. I'd say that back when that ideology was conceived, people saw people in general and themselves as barely more than "resource" cogs, and that the rulers or state had some sort of "effectively-divine" right to rule them. I would argue that civilized and connected society has moved past that, to the point that anything remotely close to actual socialism or communism would be equivalent to totalitarianism in people's minds. It would be seen as barbaric, and contrary to people's right to exist.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    This distinction has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
    - awt 10y ago
      This is not a distinction, but a generalization, or abstraction that better describes the phenomenon and your assertion that a state controlled economy may be contemplated without respect to the ideology to which it conforms is dubious.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        This is probably an interesting semantic debate to have, but I have to apologize for being completely disinterested in it.
        awt 10y ago
        Which is why collectivism pops up murderously over and over with different names.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Do I understand you accurately to be saying "if you want participate in a debate with me on my terms you're i part responsible for all the evils of state-run economies"?
        awt 10y ago
        Aha now that is an interesting question and I'm glad you asked. I know that I personally would feel responsible if I saw collectivism murdering yet another society and did not call it out for what it is. If I for example saw that people were dying of lead poisoning but instead blamed evil spirits then clearly I would be responsible for mass poisoning.
        tptacek 10y ago
- wangchow 10y ago
  Amen to this. For example, socialism is what constructs football stadiums in America.
  - clarkmoody 10y ago
    No. Crony capitalism constructs stadiums. Socialism means the state ("the people") owns the means of production. As far as I can tell, manufacturing is not owned by the government and construction workers are not employed by the state.
    - mrow84 10y ago
      Socialism just advocates for collective ownership, without specifying the scale or scope of that collective. It does not have to be the state government, and could, for example, be a group of football fans.
    - honkhonkpants 10y ago
      How about the interstate highway system then? As far as I can tell, it is pure socialism.
      - kiba 10y ago
        It is also in some way, a disaster, but I think that's more about implementation rather than the use of public money.
      - clarkmoody 10y ago
        The interstate system is a tax and spend program. If you're equating government spending with socialism, then you should probably revisit your understanding of each. Some classify roads as a public good[1]. Of course, there are private roads as well. The government owns the interstates, but that is just property, not a means of production. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
    - kiba 10y ago
      Public school systems construct stadiums and fund football teams. Private universities also construct stadiums and fund football(and other sport) team. Why should a sport team has anything to do with an educational facility? How does a football team...say...further the education of its college students?
- beloch 10y ago
  Several countries that are fairly socialist have higher living standards than the U.S., where "socialism" is an epithet for some reason. McCarthy lives on I suppose. Venezuela's problem is totalitarianism. In a socialist country, it is possible for the government to be governed by law and have limits placed on its power. That is not what's been going in in Venezuala.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - SilasX 10y ago
    But what was totalitarian about it? All of the economically destructive measures (price controls, currency exchange rates, impositions on the rich/foreign investment) were immensely popular, right?
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      Yeah, not totalitarian policies, just stupid policies. Genghis Khan could become dictator and if he fixed those policies, the economy would improve.
      - elliotec 10y ago
        I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. He was solely responsible for one of the largest economic revolutions in history by uniting the Silk Road, standardizing a writing system, and ran a meritocratic society. So yeah of course he could fix it, he's one of the most successful rulers of all time by all metrics. Edit: Yeah, obviously he and his conquest killed a lot of people. And yeah, in this case it was a metric of success for him and his empire.
        astrodust 10y ago
        He also murdered millions of peasants he saw no use for since rice farming was not on their list of priorities. When conquering China it was often the case that academics were the first on the chopping block since they were presumably the ones most likely to cause trouble. So yeah, he fixed the economy?
- seibelj 10y ago
  When I say socialism and communism, I mean that the government regulates the economy or large pieces of it. Successful "socialist" western democracies are free-market economies that have higher taxes to provide a social safety net. I wish we could call that "empathetic capitalism".
  - TillE 10y ago
    > I wish we could call that "empathetic capitalism". OK, but the universally accepted term is democratic socialism, which is quite accurate. "Capitalism" implies a lot more than just free markets.
    - mattmcknight 10y ago
      Wrong- the generally accepted term is "welfare state".
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I think you will have a hard time generating conclusive evidence for this argument. Doing so will force you to argue that well-known people who describe themselves as philosophically socialist are wrong about that.
        mattmcknight 10y ago
        Such as whom? Bernie Sanders is a politician clearly lying about the definition of socialism, while those he claims to want to imitate deny they are socialist.[1] [1] http://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist http://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-n...
      - alkonaut 10y ago
        No. Welfare state is the apparatus prividing social security and benefits for a population. It's not an ideology or a political system. Sweden has a large welfare state in the sense that we have free single payer health care, free education etc. We are a social democracy in the sense that the current political climate and consensus is shaped by a few decades of social democratic rule. High progressive taxes etc are seen as norm and are of course necessary to finance a large welfare state. However: How the money for a large welfare state like the Nordic ones is raised is orthogonal to whether it's being spent on a large welfare state or not. Had we had 10% military spending we'd have a much smaller welfare state than today, with the same taxes. It's entirely possible for a country to have a very large welfare state without being the least bit socialist - especially if they have natural resources. If the swedish national mining Company (yes, a state owned Company!) suddenly found resources allowing taxes to be halved - we would.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. You might be surprised to learn that not even the Soviet Union considered itself communist (they considered themselves socialist transitioning to communist). The reality is that "socialist" is a word without a clear definition, and it's better to avoid using it altogether if you want people to understand you. If by socialism you mean, "a country that takes care of the poor" than say that. Arguing over the definition of the term 'socialism' is arguing over a definition, and a waste of breath.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I agree that it's a pointless argument, but that goes both ways. Plenty of people use the term "socialist" in ways that don't connote planned economies. Moreover, there are examples of state-run economies that are neither socialist nor communist. The trouble is that when we talk about the positive aspects of socialism, we have an annoying tendancy to exploit the word to make Sweden an apology for Venezuela: we confuse "socialized services" with "command economy" and end up ignoring the real public policy failures of places like Venezuela. And when we talk about its negative aspects, we tend to make Venezuela a cautionary tale against, say, single-payer health care.
  - jdblair 10y ago
    "Socialism" has a clear, simple definition. Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production by the government for the people. Its the mis-use of the term socialism and the details of actually implementing government ownership of the means of production that makes discussions so confusing. To pick a few examples, Obamacare is not socialism. Government assistance, as implemented in the US, is not socialism. A state run oil company, on the other hand, may be part of a socialist economy.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      It's more complicated even than this, and, unfortunately, that means your argument isn't dispositive. There is, for instance, "market socialism", which describes public/private cooperatives. Sweden would call itself a "social democracy", rather than a "socialist country", but Sweden does some things that clearly cross the line in ownership and control of the means of production for some industries. Moreover: most countries with single-payer health care --- the UK, Canada, France --- have state control over one of the most important sectors of the economy! By your definition, they're (at least in part) socialist countries. But they would dispute the characterization. It's not other people who are causing these problems by incorrectly using the terms. It's that reliably using the term "socialism" with any precision requires so much clunky verbiage that nobody --- on either side --- can use it correctly. When we use the term or see it used, we should raise a flag so that we all understand it's ambiguous, and leave it at that. For what it's worth: by no definition does it make sense to call Obamacare "socialist".
- alvarosm 10y ago
  No. Some of us would contend that the basic tenets of socialism cause a society to degenerate in the same way. Communism brings it on brutally, all of a sudden. Besides, Venezuela considers itself socialist. "21st century socialism", they proudly named it.
  - vkou 10y ago
    The People's Democratic Republic of North Korea considers itself 'democratic' - it's even in the name!
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      As did east Germany. I can't think of a single country with "Democratic" in the name that was actually democratic? It's like buying a product that says "high quality" something on it.
- paganel 10y ago
  > I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. I was born in the Socialist Republic of Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Romania) in the early 1980s, which was ruled by the Romanian Communist Party (which was the only allowed party). The situation was pretty much the same in all the former Eastern Block countries, with socialism being used interchangeably with communism, there were no debates in our local press about which one was which. I think "communism is different than socialism" is a Western-countries' thing, where Obama is called a socialist because he tried to make sense of the US health-care system (long story short: he's not). And on a more general level of discussion, I'm not sure there really is a difference between the two. I've read some left-leaning literature (Marx's Capital I, his "German Ideology" and other younger writings of his, Lenin's "What Is to Be Done?", Kołakowski's 3-volume "Main Currents of Marxism", some Lukács, Jacques Rancière's "Nights of Labor: The Workers Dream in Nineteenth Century France") and no-where in those volumes there was a clear distinction made between "communism" and "socialism". The only nuance I can think of is Lenin's insistence that trade-unionist communism was a bad thing, because that involved making a pact with the "enemy" (the capitalists) and only settling for small gains, ignoring the bigger picture. He was of course right, from a workers' point of view perspective, you either control all means of productions or you risk still depending on the capitalists. 100+ or so years since his early writings the European working class is basically dead.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The situation was pretty much the same in all the former Eastern Block countries, with socialism being used interchangeably with communism Well, yeah, authoritarian (Leninist-Stalinist) Communist regimes weren't particularly eager to highlight that Leninist vanguardism was a sharp repudiation of central elements of Marxist Communism (and one that, after making some early marks, was singularly unsuccessful in establishing itself any place where capitalism and the elements Marx saw as necessary for moving on to socialism had ever existed, as opposed to other strands of socialism, both Marxist-derived and otherwise), and that Marxist Communism itself was one of many strands of socialist theory, and that all of the advanced "capitalist" economies of the West had -- largely as a result of non-Marxist, or at least non-Leninist, socialist forces -- long since departed from the "capitalism" critiqued by Marx for what the modern mixed economy, which is neither strictly capitalist nor socialist by 19th or early 20th century standards, keeping superficially the property structure of the former, with many structures inspired by the latter. > I think "communism is different than socialism" is a Western-countries' thing Well, yes, seeing socialism as broader than Communism is probably more common in places where the successful forms of socialism absolutely weren't Leninist Communism, often weren't other derivations of Marxist Communism -- and, in some cases, characterized Leninist Communist as "state capitalism" -- and had to deal with domestic opponents that wanted to paint them with the brush of Leninism-Stalinism and its atrocities than in one-party Leninist-Stalinist states.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  Or rather, we need to be more careful in conflating the axises of political thought - communism does not necessarily require totalitarianism, but, like extreme conservatism, begets it.
- xchip 10y ago
  If you pay 40% taxes then you are 40% socialist. In Belgium we pay: - 50% income taxes - 21% VAT (a kind of sales tax) - 14% Social security 50+21+14 = %85 Socialist. Any taxes you pay above 50% brings you into the communist area [myself et al] so we are 35% communist. (this was just for laughs)
pastProlog 10y ago
> The socialist downfall of countries are all unique, but follow similar paths The PRC just surpassed US GDP on some measures, whereas in the 1940s it was a western and Japanese occupied backwards basket case. Is that the downfall you mean? Or do you mean Russia, which couldn't win a war with the Japanese in 1905, never mind Germany a decade later? The New York Times columns of 1918 said Mr. Lenin's government would fall any day now. What actually happened is as Europe and the US fell into depression in the 1930s, Russia was surging ahead and industrializing. It repelled an attack by a military alliance of virtually all of continental Europe in 1941 and Red Army soldiers planted the red flag in 1945. Then it launched the first satellite, man in space etc. After becoming a superpower, the central committee of the CPSU decided to pack it in in the late 1980s, and attune itself to the economic and political system of the rest of the world. Even Molotov never believed in "socialism in one country", and he was the one proclaiming it. Some downfall, foreign-dominated backwaters rose to become world superpowers.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  > in the 1930s, Russia was surging ahead and industrializing It (The USSR) was also busy having famines that claimed millions of lives. Because it was too busy selling gold and wheat to buy industry from Americans (that's who built all those plants). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor I think I'd skip an industrialization like that.
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    > I think I'd skip an industrialization like that. Then you could enjoy Holodomor every day thanks to the unfortunate fact that you happened to occupy some prime Lebensraum. Stalin was a mass murderer, but he ultimately made or allowed the correct strategy to put the USSR in a position to defeat Germany, which was a pretty good trick (to put it lightly).
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      As we know today, Germans never had any manpower to make use of much lebensraum. They were at Peak German at that time, after which their birth rate declined dramatically. They won't have the men to settle any of those lands they were supposed to colonize. Anyway, USSR lost the most lives fighting Germany and gained least benefits out of that. Just check: https://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/RU/DE https://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/RU/DE
EGreg 10y ago
Some blame socialism, others blame this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

by seibelj 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. Presumably, the real problem we're talking about is state-controlled economies, regardless of the ideologies that set them up.

awt 10y ago
Would you agree that the term collectivist encompasses both communism and socialism?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Depends on your definition of socialism. If you mean "all the means of production are owned by the state", then yes, that probably counts as collectivist. But if by "socialism", you mean "what goes by that label in Scandanavia", then probably no, "collectivist" doesn't fit. It's just somewhat more government services than the US has, at the price of somewhat higher taxes.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    "Somewhat higher" as a euphemism for "half again more"
    - danielweber 10y ago
      He used "somewhat higher" twice. While I'd personally prefer smaller government, paying 50% more for 50% more services isn't nuts.
  - awt 10y ago
    Right which is why I prefer to use collectivism which is prioritizing the group over the individual and would seem to subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      You sound like you think you're agreeing with me, but you're not. I'm saying that socialism, as practiced in Scandanavia, is not collectivist. That means that, no, collectivism does not "subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give".
      - zo1 10y ago
        Taking X% of an individual's outcome and putting it into a pool for the collective good sure sounds pretty close to: "Collective ownership of the means to production". Doubly-so if that X is more than 50, as that means you are working more for others or the collective than you are for yourself. Any who, I really think the definition of "Socialism" and "Socialist" require an overhaul in our current societal climate. I'd say that back when that ideology was conceived, people saw people in general and themselves as barely more than "resource" cogs, and that the rulers or state had some sort of "effectively-divine" right to rule them. I would argue that civilized and connected society has moved past that, to the point that anything remotely close to actual socialism or communism would be equivalent to totalitarianism in people's minds. It would be seen as barbaric, and contrary to people's right to exist.
- tptacek 10y ago
  This distinction has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
  - awt 10y ago
    This is not a distinction, but a generalization, or abstraction that better describes the phenomenon and your assertion that a state controlled economy may be contemplated without respect to the ideology to which it conforms is dubious.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      This is probably an interesting semantic debate to have, but I have to apologize for being completely disinterested in it.
      - awt 10y ago
        Which is why collectivism pops up murderously over and over with different names.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Do I understand you accurately to be saying "if you want participate in a debate with me on my terms you're i part responsible for all the evils of state-run economies"?
        awt 10y ago
        Aha now that is an interesting question and I'm glad you asked. I know that I personally would feel responsible if I saw collectivism murdering yet another society and did not call it out for what it is. If I for example saw that people were dying of lead poisoning but instead blamed evil spirits then clearly I would be responsible for mass poisoning.
        tptacek 10y ago
wangchow 10y ago
Amen to this. For example, socialism is what constructs football stadiums in America.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  No. Crony capitalism constructs stadiums. Socialism means the state ("the people") owns the means of production. As far as I can tell, manufacturing is not owned by the government and construction workers are not employed by the state.
  - mrow84 10y ago
    Socialism just advocates for collective ownership, without specifying the scale or scope of that collective. It does not have to be the state government, and could, for example, be a group of football fans.
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    How about the interstate highway system then? As far as I can tell, it is pure socialism.
    - kiba 10y ago
      It is also in some way, a disaster, but I think that's more about implementation rather than the use of public money.
    - clarkmoody 10y ago
      The interstate system is a tax and spend program. If you're equating government spending with socialism, then you should probably revisit your understanding of each. Some classify roads as a public good[1]. Of course, there are private roads as well. The government owns the interstates, but that is just property, not a means of production. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
  - kiba 10y ago
    Public school systems construct stadiums and fund football teams. Private universities also construct stadiums and fund football(and other sport) team. Why should a sport team has anything to do with an educational facility? How does a football team...say...further the education of its college students?
beloch 10y ago
Several countries that are fairly socialist have higher living standards than the U.S., where "socialism" is an epithet for some reason. McCarthy lives on I suppose. Venezuela's problem is totalitarianism. In a socialist country, it is possible for the government to be governed by law and have limits placed on its power. That is not what's been going in in Venezuala.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- SilasX 10y ago
  But what was totalitarian about it? All of the economically destructive measures (price controls, currency exchange rates, impositions on the rich/foreign investment) were immensely popular, right?
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    Yeah, not totalitarian policies, just stupid policies. Genghis Khan could become dictator and if he fixed those policies, the economy would improve.
    - elliotec 10y ago
      I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. He was solely responsible for one of the largest economic revolutions in history by uniting the Silk Road, standardizing a writing system, and ran a meritocratic society. So yeah of course he could fix it, he's one of the most successful rulers of all time by all metrics. Edit: Yeah, obviously he and his conquest killed a lot of people. And yeah, in this case it was a metric of success for him and his empire.
      - astrodust 10y ago
        He also murdered millions of peasants he saw no use for since rice farming was not on their list of priorities. When conquering China it was often the case that academics were the first on the chopping block since they were presumably the ones most likely to cause trouble. So yeah, he fixed the economy?
seibelj 10y ago
When I say socialism and communism, I mean that the government regulates the economy or large pieces of it. Successful "socialist" western democracies are free-market economies that have higher taxes to provide a social safety net. I wish we could call that "empathetic capitalism".
- TillE 10y ago
  > I wish we could call that "empathetic capitalism". OK, but the universally accepted term is democratic socialism, which is quite accurate. "Capitalism" implies a lot more than just free markets.
  - mattmcknight 10y ago
    Wrong- the generally accepted term is "welfare state".
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I think you will have a hard time generating conclusive evidence for this argument. Doing so will force you to argue that well-known people who describe themselves as philosophically socialist are wrong about that.
      - mattmcknight 10y ago
        Such as whom? Bernie Sanders is a politician clearly lying about the definition of socialism, while those he claims to want to imitate deny they are socialist.[1] [1] http://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist http://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-n...
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      No. Welfare state is the apparatus prividing social security and benefits for a population. It's not an ideology or a political system. Sweden has a large welfare state in the sense that we have free single payer health care, free education etc. We are a social democracy in the sense that the current political climate and consensus is shaped by a few decades of social democratic rule. High progressive taxes etc are seen as norm and are of course necessary to finance a large welfare state. However: How the money for a large welfare state like the Nordic ones is raised is orthogonal to whether it's being spent on a large welfare state or not. Had we had 10% military spending we'd have a much smaller welfare state than today, with the same taxes. It's entirely possible for a country to have a very large welfare state without being the least bit socialist - especially if they have natural resources. If the swedish national mining Company (yes, a state owned Company!) suddenly found resources allowing taxes to be halved - we would.
ktRolster 10y ago
I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. You might be surprised to learn that not even the Soviet Union considered itself communist (they considered themselves socialist transitioning to communist). The reality is that "socialist" is a word without a clear definition, and it's better to avoid using it altogether if you want people to understand you. If by socialism you mean, "a country that takes care of the poor" than say that. Arguing over the definition of the term 'socialism' is arguing over a definition, and a waste of breath.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I agree that it's a pointless argument, but that goes both ways. Plenty of people use the term "socialist" in ways that don't connote planned economies. Moreover, there are examples of state-run economies that are neither socialist nor communist. The trouble is that when we talk about the positive aspects of socialism, we have an annoying tendancy to exploit the word to make Sweden an apology for Venezuela: we confuse "socialized services" with "command economy" and end up ignoring the real public policy failures of places like Venezuela. And when we talk about its negative aspects, we tend to make Venezuela a cautionary tale against, say, single-payer health care.
- jdblair 10y ago
  "Socialism" has a clear, simple definition. Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production by the government for the people. Its the mis-use of the term socialism and the details of actually implementing government ownership of the means of production that makes discussions so confusing. To pick a few examples, Obamacare is not socialism. Government assistance, as implemented in the US, is not socialism. A state run oil company, on the other hand, may be part of a socialist economy.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    It's more complicated even than this, and, unfortunately, that means your argument isn't dispositive. There is, for instance, "market socialism", which describes public/private cooperatives. Sweden would call itself a "social democracy", rather than a "socialist country", but Sweden does some things that clearly cross the line in ownership and control of the means of production for some industries. Moreover: most countries with single-payer health care --- the UK, Canada, France --- have state control over one of the most important sectors of the economy! By your definition, they're (at least in part) socialist countries. But they would dispute the characterization. It's not other people who are causing these problems by incorrectly using the terms. It's that reliably using the term "socialism" with any precision requires so much clunky verbiage that nobody --- on either side --- can use it correctly. When we use the term or see it used, we should raise a flag so that we all understand it's ambiguous, and leave it at that. For what it's worth: by no definition does it make sense to call Obamacare "socialist".
alvarosm 10y ago
No. Some of us would contend that the basic tenets of socialism cause a society to degenerate in the same way. Communism brings it on brutally, all of a sudden. Besides, Venezuela considers itself socialist. "21st century socialism", they proudly named it.
- vkou 10y ago
  The People's Democratic Republic of North Korea considers itself 'democratic' - it's even in the name!
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    As did east Germany. I can't think of a single country with "Democratic" in the name that was actually democratic? It's like buying a product that says "high quality" something on it.
paganel 10y ago
> I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. I was born in the Socialist Republic of Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Romania) in the early 1980s, which was ruled by the Romanian Communist Party (which was the only allowed party). The situation was pretty much the same in all the former Eastern Block countries, with socialism being used interchangeably with communism, there were no debates in our local press about which one was which. I think "communism is different than socialism" is a Western-countries' thing, where Obama is called a socialist because he tried to make sense of the US health-care system (long story short: he's not). And on a more general level of discussion, I'm not sure there really is a difference between the two. I've read some left-leaning literature (Marx's Capital I, his "German Ideology" and other younger writings of his, Lenin's "What Is to Be Done?", Kołakowski's 3-volume "Main Currents of Marxism", some Lukács, Jacques Rancière's "Nights of Labor: The Workers Dream in Nineteenth Century France") and no-where in those volumes there was a clear distinction made between "communism" and "socialism". The only nuance I can think of is Lenin's insistence that trade-unionist communism was a bad thing, because that involved making a pact with the "enemy" (the capitalists) and only settling for small gains, ignoring the bigger picture. He was of course right, from a workers' point of view perspective, you either control all means of productions or you risk still depending on the capitalists. 100+ or so years since his early writings the European working class is basically dead.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The situation was pretty much the same in all the former Eastern Block countries, with socialism being used interchangeably with communism Well, yeah, authoritarian (Leninist-Stalinist) Communist regimes weren't particularly eager to highlight that Leninist vanguardism was a sharp repudiation of central elements of Marxist Communism (and one that, after making some early marks, was singularly unsuccessful in establishing itself any place where capitalism and the elements Marx saw as necessary for moving on to socialism had ever existed, as opposed to other strands of socialism, both Marxist-derived and otherwise), and that Marxist Communism itself was one of many strands of socialist theory, and that all of the advanced "capitalist" economies of the West had -- largely as a result of non-Marxist, or at least non-Leninist, socialist forces -- long since departed from the "capitalism" critiqued by Marx for what the modern mixed economy, which is neither strictly capitalist nor socialist by 19th or early 20th century standards, keeping superficially the property structure of the former, with many structures inspired by the latter. > I think "communism is different than socialism" is a Western-countries' thing Well, yes, seeing socialism as broader than Communism is probably more common in places where the successful forms of socialism absolutely weren't Leninist Communism, often weren't other derivations of Marxist Communism -- and, in some cases, characterized Leninist Communist as "state capitalism" -- and had to deal with domestic opponents that wanted to paint them with the brush of Leninism-Stalinism and its atrocities than in one-party Leninist-Stalinist states.
madaxe_again 10y ago
Or rather, we need to be more careful in conflating the axises of political thought - communism does not necessarily require totalitarianism, but, like extreme conservatism, begets it.
xchip 10y ago
If you pay 40% taxes then you are 40% socialist. In Belgium we pay: - 50% income taxes - 21% VAT (a kind of sales tax) - 14% Social security 50+21+14 = %85 Socialist. Any taxes you pay above 50% brings you into the communist area [myself et al] so we are 35% communist. (this was just for laughs)

pastProlog 10y ago

> The socialist downfall of countries are all unique, but follow similar paths The PRC just surpassed US GDP on some measures, whereas in the 1940s it was a western and Japanese occupied backwards basket case. Is that the downfall you mean? Or do you mean Russia, which couldn't win a war with the Japanese in 1905, never mind Germany a decade later? The New York Times columns of 1918 said Mr. Lenin's government would fall any day now. What actually happened is as Europe and the US fell into depression in the 1930s, Russia was surging ahead and industrializing. It repelled an attack by a military alliance of virtually all of continental Europe in 1941 and Red Army soldiers planted the red flag in 1945. Then it launched the first satellite, man in space etc. After becoming a superpower, the central committee of the CPSU decided to pack it in in the late 1980s, and attune itself to the economic and political system of the rest of the world. Even Molotov never believed in "socialism in one country", and he was the one proclaiming it. Some downfall, foreign-dominated backwaters rose to become world superpowers.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
> in the 1930s, Russia was surging ahead and industrializing It (The USSR) was also busy having famines that claimed millions of lives. Because it was too busy selling gold and wheat to buy industry from Americans (that's who built all those plants). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor I think I'd skip an industrialization like that.
- rangibaby 10y ago
  > I think I'd skip an industrialization like that. Then you could enjoy Holodomor every day thanks to the unfortunate fact that you happened to occupy some prime Lebensraum. Stalin was a mass murderer, but he ultimately made or allowed the correct strategy to put the USSR in a position to defeat Germany, which was a pretty good trick (to put it lightly).
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    As we know today, Germans never had any manpower to make use of much lebensraum. They were at Peak German at that time, after which their birth rate declined dramatically. They won't have the men to settle any of those lands they were supposed to colonize. Anyway, USSR lost the most lives fighting Germany and gained least benefits out of that. Just check: https://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/RU/DE https://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/RU/DE

EGreg 10y ago

Some blame socialism, others blame this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse