3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoPrivate 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 agoThat'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 agoIt was along the lines of public owns the means of production.