Crosswords2 mins ago
Name One Successful Socialist Nation?
19 Answers
Apparently Labour's Emily Thornberry couldn't on last night's Question Time.
https:/
https:/
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And this of course:-
http://
http://
What do we mean by "socialism" here?
Marxist-Leninsim, with abolition of private property and a planned economy in which everything is state-run?
Social democracy, with regulated market economies and a well-funded social safety net?
Democratic socialism, with nationalised (but not planned) industrial strategy?
Anarcho-Socialism, with the abolition of a government entirely and a society based on mutual dependence?
Utopian socialism (also called Owenism), where enterprises in a market economy are run co-operatively?
etc etc
Socialism isn't one idea, it's an umbrella term for a bunch of different philosophies which have common origins in the critique (with varying degrees of severity) of capitalism. So the question is somewhat meaningless.
Marxist-Leninsim, with abolition of private property and a planned economy in which everything is state-run?
Social democracy, with regulated market economies and a well-funded social safety net?
Democratic socialism, with nationalised (but not planned) industrial strategy?
Anarcho-Socialism, with the abolition of a government entirely and a society based on mutual dependence?
Utopian socialism (also called Owenism), where enterprises in a market economy are run co-operatively?
etc etc
Socialism isn't one idea, it's an umbrella term for a bunch of different philosophies which have common origins in the critique (with varying degrees of severity) of capitalism. So the question is somewhat meaningless.
I don't think it's possible to find an example where pure, unadulterated socialism has "worked". I don't think there ever will be, either. But one can still find reasonable, individual socialist polices "working" rather well. The welfare state is a pretty socialist idea, for example, and we're long past the time where anyone is seriously going to argue against doing away with it - in its entirety, at least.
Maybe Socialism tends to fail because it sets impossible standards for success, and more fundamentally it's not in enough people's nature to be altruistic and selfless in the way that Socialism requires. But then again, Capitalism doesn't exactly "work" for most people either. But then since it doesn't purport to, people apparently tend to forgive its failures while lambasting socialism, or anything that even remotely resembles it.
Maybe Socialism tends to fail because it sets impossible standards for success, and more fundamentally it's not in enough people's nature to be altruistic and selfless in the way that Socialism requires. But then again, Capitalism doesn't exactly "work" for most people either. But then since it doesn't purport to, people apparently tend to forgive its failures while lambasting socialism, or anything that even remotely resembles it.
The original question does feel a little like it's from the 1066 and All That School of Historical and Economic Analysis: "Do you think the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a Good Thing?"; "Was it ever worth trying to become Top Nation?"; "Explain in not more than 10 words the root causes of the decline of Roman Imperial Hegemony", etc.
Socialism tends to flourish most where things are already not great and the masses are no longer prepared for an elite to live well while they struggle with the inequality of it all. So one might expect most "Socialist states" to not be shining. But they should be making progress for the people rather than the select few.
Unfortunately that also needs moral leaders who are not providing for their own at the expense of others. Which is why it is better to have a selection of socialist policies ensuring more equity in a country that still allows folk to do well for themselves, by allowing some reign to the human desire to gain, but within a legal/commercial structure that avoids excesses.
Unfortunately that also needs moral leaders who are not providing for their own at the expense of others. Which is why it is better to have a selection of socialist policies ensuring more equity in a country that still allows folk to do well for themselves, by allowing some reign to the human desire to gain, but within a legal/commercial structure that avoids excesses.
AOG
There's not such thing as a purely socialist, or purely capitalist nation.
Every nation has elements of socialism and capitalism.
It's the way the world works.
For instance - the National Heath Service and our social security systems are socialist in execution and intent.
However, they can only exist within the framework of a capitalist system.
There's not such thing as a purely socialist, or purely capitalist nation.
Every nation has elements of socialism and capitalism.
It's the way the world works.
For instance - the National Heath Service and our social security systems are socialist in execution and intent.
However, they can only exist within the framework of a capitalist system.
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.