4 ms·
Those aren't socialist countries. They don't even call themselves that. I feel like a country has to at least call itself socialist, for it to count. A sociali
by stale2002 8y ago
Those aren't socialist countries. They don't even call themselves that. I feel like a country has to at least call itself socialist, for it to count.
A socialist country is one in which the means of production aren't privately owned. If most private businesses are illegal, that's socialism.
The Nordic countries aren't even attempting to ban private businesses, or claiming that as their goal.
The track record for countries that call themselves socialist is pretty grim, on the other hand.
- yongjik 8y agoThat's all fine and dandy, but then so many Americans turn around and call universal healthcare socialism, never mind that it's implemented in pretty much every West European Country that are decidedly non-socialist according to your criterion. You can't use "socialism" to mean "Venezuela, and only Venezuela (well, maybe Cuba)" and then "anything that gives more power to the US federal government". Choose one. (I'm not saying you do, but so many people do.)
- lainga 8y agoI fail to see how that relates to the GP's argument. You just brought up something else that Americans do.
- yongjik 8y agoThe problem is that when people debate whether socialist countries are bound to fail, everybody has their own definition of socialism. From what I've seen, many people who believe the "danger" of socialism are also quite convinced that the US is in the danger of slipping into socialism. Why that doesn't happen in Sweden is left as exercise.
- jose_zap 8y ago> A socialist country is one in which the means of production aren't privately owned. If most private businesses are illegal, that's socialism. By that account Venezuela was certainly not a socialist country.