they’re about as close to socialism as anything that ever worked.
look, you can say hey these countries are socialism light, or soft socialism, or whatever, but they WORK a fuckton better than anything the hard core types has ever accomplished. And if you call China socialist then ANYTHING is socialism. Pick a lane, you don’t get it both ways.
On the other hand, the terrible object lesson examples for socialism litter the history books. I’ll take a soft socialism 5/5 times before gambling with Pol Pot, Stalin, Xi, Kim etc., you do you.
I think perhaps there has been a misunderstanding because I’m saying none of the above are socialist?
It’s not having it both ways?
The Nordics are not socialism light. The capitalist class are alive and well there. The workers do not have democratic control over the workplaces (unless they happen to be part of a coop), and you’re still able to amass large amounts of wealth on the backs of the working class (there are billionaires from all those countries).
I’m not disagreeing that it’s working better than the “hardcore types” (who I’ve just said aren’t socialist). I’d rather live on the Nordics over China, Vietnam, Cuba etc any day…
I feel like you haven’t actually read my comment :(
On the other hand, the terrible object lesson examples for socialism litter the history books. I’ll take a soft socialism 5/5 times before gambling with Pol Pot, Stalin, Xi, Kim etc., you do you.
In name only. In my opinion, if it’s not democratic, it’s not socialism. But I’m kinda annoyed that you’re implying I think those “examples” are something worthwhile…
There are non-tankies (me) who just wouldn’t call those countries socialist.
When asked if there are current examples of socialism working well. Pretty much no, you get couped by the CIA for that haha
No, I don’t count Cuba, Vietnam, china etc. as socialist.
You can’t have socialism without democracy, because of, ya know, the whole “worker control” thing…
I’m most familiar with China, and there they just have an extra aspect of the ruling class which also includes party position, in addition to wealth…
In conclusion, accurately pointing out that Norway, Sweden and Denmark aren’t socialist, doesn’t mean you’re a tankie.
They’re just more regulated capitalist countries with better social safety nets than the USA.
they’re about as close to socialism as anything that ever worked.
look, you can say hey these countries are socialism light, or soft socialism, or whatever, but they WORK a fuckton better than anything the hard core types has ever accomplished. And if you call China socialist then ANYTHING is socialism. Pick a lane, you don’t get it both ways.
On the other hand, the terrible object lesson examples for socialism litter the history books. I’ll take a soft socialism 5/5 times before gambling with Pol Pot, Stalin, Xi, Kim etc., you do you.
I think perhaps there has been a misunderstanding because I’m saying none of the above are socialist?
It’s not having it both ways?
The Nordics are not socialism light. The capitalist class are alive and well there. The workers do not have democratic control over the workplaces (unless they happen to be part of a coop), and you’re still able to amass large amounts of wealth on the backs of the working class (there are billionaires from all those countries).
I’m not disagreeing that it’s working better than the “hardcore types” (who I’ve just said aren’t socialist). I’d rather live on the Nordics over China, Vietnam, Cuba etc any day…
I feel like you haven’t actually read my comment :(
In name only. In my opinion, if it’s not democratic, it’s not socialism. But I’m kinda annoyed that you’re implying I think those “examples” are something worthwhile…
I’ll give it another read tomorrow when I’ve given it some more thought.