3 ms·

> You might correctly argue that the Soviet Union was not a shining beacon of how to implement it India as implemented Socialism btw. Which lead to economic cr

> You might correctly argue that the Soviet Union was not a shining beacon of how to implement it India as implemented Socialism btw. Which lead to economic crisis[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Indian_economic_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Indian_economic_crisis

sofixa 2y ago
There isn't any mention of socialism, or anything related to it in your link. It sounds like a classic balance of payments issue (importing too much compared to exports/tourism/other revenues) being hit with an exploding in price critical import (oil). Sri Lanka had the same issues just a few years back, was it "socialism" too?
- leosanchez 2y ago
  India until 1991 was very socialist. After 1991 they implemented reforms to reduce state controls. This [0] explains a bit better [0] https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/india-and-the-tragedy-of-socialism https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/india-and-the-tragedy-of-soci...
  - sofixa 2y ago
    What a shittily written article, staining the Adam Smith name. Nationalising a bunch of critical industries isn't "socialism" and the article utterly fails to explain how it is or why it's related. Historical UK, and modern France, Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia also had multiple crucial industries which were fully nationally owned. Were they socialist too?
    - leosanchez 2y ago
      Private companies needed to obtain license [0] from the govt to start or to expand. Some companies were even prosecuted for producing more than what was allowed. This was at least Nehru's (first Prime Minister) version of Democratic Socialism. [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
      - sofixa 2y ago
        That's still not what socialism means. Absurdly tight government control over the economy, and the existence of a private market economy, doesn't mean that workers owned the means of production.
        leosanchez 2y ago
        It was along the lines of public owns the means of production.

sofixa 2y ago

There isn't any mention of socialism, or anything related to it in your link. It sounds like a classic balance of payments issue (importing too much compared to exports/tourism/other revenues) being hit with an exploding in price critical import (oil). Sri Lanka had the same issues just a few years back, was it "socialism" too?

leosanchez 2y ago
India until 1991 was very socialist. After 1991 they implemented reforms to reduce state controls. This [0] explains a bit better [0] https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/india-and-the-tragedy-of-socialism https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/india-and-the-tragedy-of-soci...
- sofixa 2y ago
  What a shittily written article, staining the Adam Smith name. Nationalising a bunch of critical industries isn't "socialism" and the article utterly fails to explain how it is or why it's related. Historical UK, and modern France, Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia also had multiple crucial industries which were fully nationally owned. Were they socialist too?
  - leosanchez 2y ago
    Private companies needed to obtain license [0] from the govt to start or to expand. Some companies were even prosecuted for producing more than what was allowed. This was at least Nehru's (first Prime Minister) version of Democratic Socialism. [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
    - sofixa 2y ago
      That's still not what socialism means. Absurdly tight government control over the economy, and the existence of a private market economy, doesn't mean that workers owned the means of production.
      - leosanchez 2y ago
        It was along the lines of public owns the means of production.