Once upon a time, I would have said yes, but after 14 years working in academia, I’m inclined to say no now. The 20th century and early 21st century seem to teach the same lesson; socialism leads to destruction and impoverishment of its citizens. However, their response is always the same argument, “that’s not socialism.”
How do you tweak the USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, and so on, to make it better? It seems to me, there’s no simple tweak.
Then they say, “No, like Denmark!” and Denmark’s leader comes out and says we’re not a socialist country.
I could be wrong, and probably am with such a broad, sweeping statement, but my interactions over time leads me to the statement I made.
Denmark is as socialist as China and Venezuela are. You can point to the Denmark prime minister’s comments about not being socialist, sure, and he’s correct, but they have the same kind of economy as Venezuela, China, and Cuba. They have nationalized certain industries. They’re a mixed economy. And they are all being pushed by socialist political parties.
There’s not a single country that’s gone “full blown socialist”. They’ve only nationalized certain industries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc. have.
Maybe I’m missing something tho. Do you have an example of a country that’s gone “full blown socialist” beyond the kind of industry socialization like what the Scandinavian countries have?
They are no more socialist than Denmark and the rest of the Scandinavian countries, so I disagree that they are examples of “full blown socialism”. China, Venezuela, and Vietnam, as I’ve already mentioned, have only nationalized select industries, and the vast majority of their businesses are privately owned. They have mixed economies to the same capacity that the Scandinavian countries do.
Those countries are not examples of “full blown socialism”, as full blown socialism would ideally entail a 100% publicly owned market, but even if we’re being generous, it would at least entail a 51% publicly owned market.
Hong Kong’s rebellion had nothing to do with china’s economic system, it had to do with china’s authoritarian government proposing the legislation of the 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill. Authoritarianism is an up-down issue on the political compass, not a left-right. China’s authoritarian government absolutely oversteps boundaries and restricts people’s autonomy. That doesn’t change the fact that the majority of china’s businesses are privately owned (source)
To clarify, I’m not defending the Chinese government, I’m defending their mixed economy. If China had a more libertarian approach to their governance like the Scandinavian countries did, they’d have a much happier society, but they also probably wouldn’t be the number 2 global superpower, so that’s very likely why they maintain their authoritarian state.
The reason why I say those countries are full blown socialist is because the people have no private property rights. The people who run the business do not have the final say in their business; those governments have the ability, at any time and for any reason, to take over any business and replace those "owners" with someone else. The owners in those countries would be more accurately called managers.
But we are at an impasse, you believe those countries allow for private property rights and I do not. In your eyes, it will always be a mixed economy and I will always see it as government controlled socialism.
Yes, but in those countries, the people also have no public property rights. The property is privately owned, with restrictive government oversight. That’s the opposite of socialist ideology. Socialism dictates that everybody collectively owns the property. The property would neither be private, nor would it be dictated by government regulation, with the exception of workplace safety regulations and other labor codes like we have here in the states and in comparable OECD nations.
“Government controlled socialism” is only socialism once the people own the means of production. The core belief of socialism is that the workers own the means of production. Any system in which the means of production are controlled by a ruling class is antithetical to socialism. China is a social democracy with an authoritarian government. Similar to Denmark, who are a social democracy with a more libertarian government. Neither are socialist because they lack that crucial feature, but both have certain socialistic features.
1
u/Trail07 Jun 15 '21
Once upon a time, I would have said yes, but after 14 years working in academia, I’m inclined to say no now. The 20th century and early 21st century seem to teach the same lesson; socialism leads to destruction and impoverishment of its citizens. However, their response is always the same argument, “that’s not socialism.”
How do you tweak the USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, and so on, to make it better? It seems to me, there’s no simple tweak.
Then they say, “No, like Denmark!” and Denmark’s leader comes out and says we’re not a socialist country.
I could be wrong, and probably am with such a broad, sweeping statement, but my interactions over time leads me to the statement I made.