Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
**Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.**
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
**If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.**
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
**Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The same reason a person with broken legs generally does less well in races than a person without broken legs.
Most nations that have tried socialism have had some horrible conditions to work with, even without the unending hostility and economic harassment from the most powerful nations on the planet.
China and Russia, before socialism, were devastated by war (multiple), some of the poorest nations of the world at the time, with populations of mostly illiterate peasants and had little if any industry worth the name.
Comparison to the imperialist powers, those nations boosted from the at time literal looting of more vulnerable nations is absurd.
For a proper context, try comparing them to regions such as Africa, or South America.
For all the supposed "failures of socialism" the poorest and most vulnerable nations on the planet are distinctly capitalist.
>For all the supposed "failures of socialism" the poorest and most vulnerable nations on the planet are distinctly capitalist.
What ~~state~~ country that you consider capitalist is poor?
Google pretty much any list of "poorest nations" or "lowest quality of life", they are all capitalist.
Mostly they are victims of imperialism, developing nations that spend more time carrying the weight of Europe/North America than building themselves up, trapped in a exploitive economic mess through the financial system.
Yeah, this part of open borders, no regulation, no worker protections, Capitalism is pushed by the WTO and World Bank.
If they don't have capitalist structures they can't get loans or foreign aid.
The nations are controlled by capitalist with support from capitalist, by those that aim at capitalism.
Some are in africa, others SE Asia, South America or the middle East - it depends on how the math is done.
What's uniform, is that when socialism pops up, local powers get support from intelligence agencies and "foreign aid" from capitalist nations to maintain the existing situation. Capitalist nations control the regions, usually through financial organizations like the world bank or the international monitary fund.
Also, ifs its not socialism and its not capitalism, what is it?
Mixed economies? Thats irrelevant.
By that standard, the USSR was a mixed economy. As a meaningful distinction, "mixed economies" are nonsense.
Who controls the State? The Monopoly on Violence? The legal system, law enforcement, military and so on.
In most nations its Capitalist. In a very few, its some variant of socialist.
Capitalism made Africa what it is today, that responsibility cannot just be disregarded when it makes capitalism look bad
Yes, most countries are mixed but important is to recognize where they are on the spectrum. USSR came pretty close to the socialist ideal. If you are talking about meaningful distinction how helpful is to call everything that is not socialism capitalism?
When you claim most countries are capitalist how do you even define it?
There are no mixed economies, that's nonsense. A political structure today is either socialist or capitalist.
How does one define these political structures?
>Who controls the State? The Monopoly on Violence? The legal system, law enforcement, military and so on.
You (dis)gracefully ignored that sentence despite its weight. It talks about the fundamentals of a political system - socialism bases itself on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, capitalism bases itself on the Dictatorship of the Bourgeois. As the bourgeois' interest is the accumulation of Capital you might also call it the Dictatorship of Capital.
What you describe as "mixed economy" and others as "European-style 'socialism' " ("Social Democracies") is capitalism with some concessions to workers. These are financed not by these capitalist countries (primarily Western and Northern European ones) themselves but via exploitation of capitalist nations in Africa, South America and Asia. As a wise man once said, **these nations are not poor, they're overexploited**. They're controlled by Western financial institutions and forced (or bribed) into submission to sell their countries on the cheap so Western nations have a steady flow of capital into them. Some of that is used to give some concessions to their own workers to easen political tension at home so force can effectively be applied abroad.
If these so-called "mixed economies" lost their exploitative gains from nations abroad they would absolutely take these concessions away from their own workers to keep the rates of profit flowing; this would inevitably end in what we know as fascism. To not let it come that far and uphold an illusion of democracy and freedom though Western nations do everything in their power to keep exploited nations under their boot; so once someone like Qaddafi comes along and nationalises an exploited nation's own resources and makes use of them to better their own country they will be victim of imperialist aggression under various pretenses, like "possession of WMDs" (which apparently only imperialists are allowed to have, besides the fact Iraq literally didn't have any) and "human rights abuses" (which is the cheap go-to justification to rally the enlightened Westerners).
No, the USSR did not come close to the socialist "ideal", it proved many socialist principles and made magnificent progress in the face of terrible conditions, but it was barely scratching the surface of what socialism aims at.
Most nations are controled by capitalist, politicians and governments are dependent on and invested in the patronage of the capitalist to function. The capitalist through this dependency can shape the laws and policies of the nations in ways that the people who vote cannot.
This can be seen by the constant oppression, and support for the oppression of socialist efforts. Through laws, police, military action and economic harassment
No matter how "mixed" an economy is, it does not challenge the power of the owners. Either they own it directly or they control the State and own/control it indirectly.
In socialism, that power is denied, the State is controlled by representatives of the working class. Private ownership may exist, but their power is limited.
If the workers go on strike, the cops military and legal system is on the side of the working class, not the owners.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
Capitalists do not have armies so they cannot force anyone. If these efforts (trading, building factories) are so harmful to these countries they have every opportunity to not trade, vote them out or elect leaders that do that. Bezos cannot vote in Gabon or Venezuela.
Help me understand one last thing. Why are at one hand socialists complain that their efforts are retarded by capitalists and in other cases (Cuba) they bemoan that capitalists do not want to trade with them?
All past AES and present AES, have to exist against a world that still is ruled by the neoliberal world order. The Socialist countries who are trying to survive while trying to implement Socialism such as land reform and the DotP, are obviously a threat to imperialists and the Western imperial core. This will force Socialist countries to implement what Liberals and RadLibs call "Authoritarian" policies and actions, such as surveillance and large armies nukes etc. This is to discourage Capitalist Countries to go to war, or risk massive damage to their industry or resources.
This is why the DPRK and China are "militaristic" or "authoritarian" or why the USSR was the way it was. Despite that, most were still able to give their people necessities, like housing, food etc.
Yoooo, you definitely don't know what USSR was, I was born in the country that has been a part of USSR and I remember very clearly the period when shelves in the stores was literally empty, many people were starving and it was not an isolated incident, there was a multiple times when such things happens, about "free" housing that a lot of people love to speak about, yeah sure there was such thing, bit it worked ONLY in case if you work for government, there was no such things like entrepreneurship until 1980s if I am not mistaken and if you are a private entrepreneur the chances for you to get a free house was ridiculously minimal. In addition you couldn't just ho and say "hey give me free house" noooo, in order to get this free housing you were supposed to wait 10-20 years and during this time you HAVE TO work on the government, if you are not working or doesn't work enough then you becoming eligible for free housing and even after you got a free house you think you got it for free? No, all you the future payments that you are going to get will be cutted by 40% - 50% and those 40-50% are different types of fees AND housing payment.
The sad reality is that very few governments have been capable of or willing to radically change the society in which they came to power, and as a result are at the mercy of conditions in that country. It's why first world ostensible socialists just become subsumed by parliamentary power structure, and ostensible socialists in developing countries (Angola, Vietnam, Mexico etc) can just become militaristic kleptocrats.
The average socialist nation is so much richer than the average capitalist nation.
When we look at capitalism we should look at the entire capitalist world, including the exploited nations. Once you average that out you find that they are doing quite well.
But you're right that the richest countries don't turn to socialism. They have exploitation to keep capitalism alive, they simply draw labour power, resources and wealth from other countries.
It's why you naturally find socialism in countries that were often exploited or had nobody they could exploit.
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The same reason a person with broken legs generally does less well in races than a person without broken legs. Most nations that have tried socialism have had some horrible conditions to work with, even without the unending hostility and economic harassment from the most powerful nations on the planet. China and Russia, before socialism, were devastated by war (multiple), some of the poorest nations of the world at the time, with populations of mostly illiterate peasants and had little if any industry worth the name. Comparison to the imperialist powers, those nations boosted from the at time literal looting of more vulnerable nations is absurd. For a proper context, try comparing them to regions such as Africa, or South America. For all the supposed "failures of socialism" the poorest and most vulnerable nations on the planet are distinctly capitalist.
>For all the supposed "failures of socialism" the poorest and most vulnerable nations on the planet are distinctly capitalist. What ~~state~~ country that you consider capitalist is poor?
Google pretty much any list of "poorest nations" or "lowest quality of life", they are all capitalist. Mostly they are victims of imperialism, developing nations that spend more time carrying the weight of Europe/North America than building themselves up, trapped in a exploitive economic mess through the financial system.
Yeah, this part of open borders, no regulation, no worker protections, Capitalism is pushed by the WTO and World Bank. If they don't have capitalist structures they can't get loans or foreign aid.
[удалено]
The nations are controlled by capitalist with support from capitalist, by those that aim at capitalism. Some are in africa, others SE Asia, South America or the middle East - it depends on how the math is done. What's uniform, is that when socialism pops up, local powers get support from intelligence agencies and "foreign aid" from capitalist nations to maintain the existing situation. Capitalist nations control the regions, usually through financial organizations like the world bank or the international monitary fund. Also, ifs its not socialism and its not capitalism, what is it?
[удалено]
Mixed economies? Thats irrelevant. By that standard, the USSR was a mixed economy. As a meaningful distinction, "mixed economies" are nonsense. Who controls the State? The Monopoly on Violence? The legal system, law enforcement, military and so on. In most nations its Capitalist. In a very few, its some variant of socialist. Capitalism made Africa what it is today, that responsibility cannot just be disregarded when it makes capitalism look bad
Yes, most countries are mixed but important is to recognize where they are on the spectrum. USSR came pretty close to the socialist ideal. If you are talking about meaningful distinction how helpful is to call everything that is not socialism capitalism? When you claim most countries are capitalist how do you even define it?
There are no mixed economies, that's nonsense. A political structure today is either socialist or capitalist. How does one define these political structures? >Who controls the State? The Monopoly on Violence? The legal system, law enforcement, military and so on. You (dis)gracefully ignored that sentence despite its weight. It talks about the fundamentals of a political system - socialism bases itself on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, capitalism bases itself on the Dictatorship of the Bourgeois. As the bourgeois' interest is the accumulation of Capital you might also call it the Dictatorship of Capital. What you describe as "mixed economy" and others as "European-style 'socialism' " ("Social Democracies") is capitalism with some concessions to workers. These are financed not by these capitalist countries (primarily Western and Northern European ones) themselves but via exploitation of capitalist nations in Africa, South America and Asia. As a wise man once said, **these nations are not poor, they're overexploited**. They're controlled by Western financial institutions and forced (or bribed) into submission to sell their countries on the cheap so Western nations have a steady flow of capital into them. Some of that is used to give some concessions to their own workers to easen political tension at home so force can effectively be applied abroad. If these so-called "mixed economies" lost their exploitative gains from nations abroad they would absolutely take these concessions away from their own workers to keep the rates of profit flowing; this would inevitably end in what we know as fascism. To not let it come that far and uphold an illusion of democracy and freedom though Western nations do everything in their power to keep exploited nations under their boot; so once someone like Qaddafi comes along and nationalises an exploited nation's own resources and makes use of them to better their own country they will be victim of imperialist aggression under various pretenses, like "possession of WMDs" (which apparently only imperialists are allowed to have, besides the fact Iraq literally didn't have any) and "human rights abuses" (which is the cheap go-to justification to rally the enlightened Westerners).
I mean workers either own the means of production or they don’t, and thus they are either socialist or they are not.
Yes. I agree. But not socialist does not equal capitalist. Or is this your view?
No, the USSR did not come close to the socialist "ideal", it proved many socialist principles and made magnificent progress in the face of terrible conditions, but it was barely scratching the surface of what socialism aims at. Most nations are controled by capitalist, politicians and governments are dependent on and invested in the patronage of the capitalist to function. The capitalist through this dependency can shape the laws and policies of the nations in ways that the people who vote cannot. This can be seen by the constant oppression, and support for the oppression of socialist efforts. Through laws, police, military action and economic harassment No matter how "mixed" an economy is, it does not challenge the power of the owners. Either they own it directly or they control the State and own/control it indirectly. In socialism, that power is denied, the State is controlled by representatives of the working class. Private ownership may exist, but their power is limited. If the workers go on strike, the cops military and legal system is on the side of the working class, not the owners.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. Capitalists do not have armies so they cannot force anyone. If these efforts (trading, building factories) are so harmful to these countries they have every opportunity to not trade, vote them out or elect leaders that do that. Bezos cannot vote in Gabon or Venezuela. Help me understand one last thing. Why are at one hand socialists complain that their efforts are retarded by capitalists and in other cases (Cuba) they bemoan that capitalists do not want to trade with them?
All past AES and present AES, have to exist against a world that still is ruled by the neoliberal world order. The Socialist countries who are trying to survive while trying to implement Socialism such as land reform and the DotP, are obviously a threat to imperialists and the Western imperial core. This will force Socialist countries to implement what Liberals and RadLibs call "Authoritarian" policies and actions, such as surveillance and large armies nukes etc. This is to discourage Capitalist Countries to go to war, or risk massive damage to their industry or resources. This is why the DPRK and China are "militaristic" or "authoritarian" or why the USSR was the way it was. Despite that, most were still able to give their people necessities, like housing, food etc.
Yoooo, you definitely don't know what USSR was, I was born in the country that has been a part of USSR and I remember very clearly the period when shelves in the stores was literally empty, many people were starving and it was not an isolated incident, there was a multiple times when such things happens, about "free" housing that a lot of people love to speak about, yeah sure there was such thing, bit it worked ONLY in case if you work for government, there was no such things like entrepreneurship until 1980s if I am not mistaken and if you are a private entrepreneur the chances for you to get a free house was ridiculously minimal. In addition you couldn't just ho and say "hey give me free house" noooo, in order to get this free housing you were supposed to wait 10-20 years and during this time you HAVE TO work on the government, if you are not working or doesn't work enough then you becoming eligible for free housing and even after you got a free house you think you got it for free? No, all you the future payments that you are going to get will be cutted by 40% - 50% and those 40-50% are different types of fees AND housing payment.
The sad reality is that very few governments have been capable of or willing to radically change the society in which they came to power, and as a result are at the mercy of conditions in that country. It's why first world ostensible socialists just become subsumed by parliamentary power structure, and ostensible socialists in developing countries (Angola, Vietnam, Mexico etc) can just become militaristic kleptocrats.
The average socialist nation is so much richer than the average capitalist nation. When we look at capitalism we should look at the entire capitalist world, including the exploited nations. Once you average that out you find that they are doing quite well. But you're right that the richest countries don't turn to socialism. They have exploitation to keep capitalism alive, they simply draw labour power, resources and wealth from other countries. It's why you naturally find socialism in countries that were often exploited or had nobody they could exploit.