4 ms·

> But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? Socialism is a big tent term. One one end you have "social democracy" where a market

> But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? Socialism is a big tent term. One one end you have "social democracy" where a market economy exists with some state ownership and taxation is used to ensure a good standard of living for all. This is also referred to a social capitalism or a social market economy. This is the kind of socialism you find in the Nordics and to a lesser extent Canada. Your Bernie Sanders socialism if you will. On the other end you have "authoritarian state socialism" - the kind of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism you may be thinking of. Then there's communism in which, in it's final form, there is no state at all. These are all socialism but each has had very different outcomes. So to answer your question with a question, to which kind of socialism are you referring? I'd say the former has worked out very well. The middle, not so much. The latter may not even be possible?

hutzlibu 4y ago
"So to answer your question with a question, to which kind of socialism are you referring?" Obviously Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and add Pol Pot to that list, among Che Guevara and Castro. Good intentions, but horrible outcome. "Then there's communism in which, in it's final form, there is no state at all. The latter may not even be possible" And it is up to debate and depends greatly how you would define "state". Humans have existed and lived, before formal states were a thing, so it is definitely possible, but apart from that, Humans will always have organisations, to well, organize things. The question is, are these organisations mandatory and formal, or not. And then there are informal hierachies etc. so the main question is, will things improve and how and why, when we get rid of the nation states.