If Communism/Socialism were to dominate the world..?

Careful here:


Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production,[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2] Democratic socialists espouse that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]


What Is Democratic Socialism?

Out of all the ideologies and tendencies listed here, market socialism (not the Chinese one of course) was never tried.
True. Which is why I prefer "social democracy" as a term for platforms like Bernie Sanders's - even though he often identifies as a "democratic socialist".
 

Windows95

Banned
Socialism needs a free press and information transparency. Shortages and badly manufactured goods and services would be resolved quickly.

India didn't have the starvation that China had, because investigative journalists exposed the leakage and corruption of bureaucracy.

So basically, authoritarianism, lack of democracy and lack of information transparency made shortages all the more real.
 
Last edited:
The question is far too open-ended to get anything other than a broad, unsatisfying answer.

For instance, we've ended up in a period of history where Liberal Democracy (with varying degrees of authoritarianism) is generally considered to be a default form of government. But there are countless roads we could have taken to get to this point from the beginning of the 20th Century, some with a higher body count than others, and some with a better result than others.

This question is just as open-ended (if not more-so).
 
Switzerland would remain Capitalist, because some country needs to set the world market prize that all the communist countries use to trade with each other. (old joke)
 
Which form of Communism or Socialism are you referring to?

  • Marxism-Leninism
  • Juche
  • Maoism
  • Trotskyism
  • Titoism
  • Eurocommunism
  • Luxemburgism
  • Council Communism
  • Hoaxism
  • Dengism
  • Prachanda Path
  • De Leonism
  • Anarcho-Communism
  • Anarcho-Syndicalism
  • Autonomism
  • Christian Communism/Socialism
  • Jewish Socialism
  • Muslim Socialism
  • Buddhist Socialism
  • Liberal socialism
  • Democratic Socialism
  • Libertarian socialism
  • Arab socialism
  • Eco-Socialism
  • Posadism
  • Market Socialism
There probably are others but then there are quite a number of schools of thought :p
I am really interested by Buddhist Socialism, and wonder how would it function.
 
I actually think the western world would be quite a bit more culturally and socially conservative. Here’s a post of mine I just posted in another thread:

That’s actually something I’ve been thinking about for quite some time myself. I think it’s unarguable that the last century has seen a historically unprecedented entropy of cultural and social norms across all western societies. I’ve been wondering if this is just the result of inevitable historical forces and overall ‘progress’, or if there’s something else going on.

I actually think the main reason for this kind of cultural entropy/degeneration (or whatever else one might call it) is capitalism, at least in its contemporary ‘neoliberal’ form (i recognize that’s kind of a vague bogeyman term). Many on the right blame ‘Cultural Marxism’ and the infiltration of cultural institutions by leftists, but I think it makes more sense to put the blame on ‘Cultural Capitalism’, for lack of a better term. If you separate the production of cultural goods (movies, music, fashion etc.) from the profit motive, then it’s likely that you won’t see the kind of rapid aesthetic changes we have witnessed during the last few decades.

I actually have an old east-German encyclopedia from the 70s, which explicitly criticizes the fashion industry in capitalist countries for just manufacturing arbitrary ‘trends’ to make money. Obviously, the source is quite biased to say the least, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

It could also be argued that many of the other cultural and social shifts we’ve seen during the last fifty years (immigration, anti-discrimination and women in the workforce, for example) were merely measures to expand the reach of labor- and consumer markets.

A housewife for example isn’t ‘useful’ in our modern world, since she does things like housework, rearing of children etc. by herself, and thus outside of the capitalist economy – not to mention that she doesn’t pay taxes. However, a woman who works full time not only pays taxes, but is also an additional consumer (since she has her own income). She also has to pay others to take care of her children or even her home (nannys, daycare workers, housekeepers etc.), thus creating even more consumers and taxpayers. The same is true for immigration, since it expands a country’s consumer and labor base (not to mention its effect on wages).

So to have a world that retains the cultural, social and aesthetic norms of the first half of the 20th century you would likely need some kind of different economic system, at least in regard to the production of cultural goods.

I actually think we’ve seen a bit of that IOTL. Just think about the different attitudes toward immigration between eastern and western Europe, for example. I think one of the reasons for this difference in attitudes is that eastern Europe was kind of ‘frozen’ culturally for more than forty years, at least to some extend.
 
At the danger of contradicting what I've said so far in this thread, I would say that THESE two mostly mean the same thing. I haven't heard the term "liberal socialism" being used for quite a while, so I hadn't thought of that. What I hear a lot more often is "democratic socialism", which has become more or less the term of choice for "I mean REAL social democracy", I thought, but "liberal socialism" does the same.

So, did the OP mean this? I somehow doubt it, given that he wrote "socialism/communism"?
I simply despise that people think that socialism means dictatorship .. or that Venezuela's problem is socialism when like in fact its not.. its corruption and plundering mixed with dictator mentality and outside interference into internal issues.

socialism is not a bad work nor should be cast in that light.

hell communism is also not a bad word, since it has never been even tried or attempted let alone any nation set a course to even achieve it. the soviet union included. in the case of the soviet union, DDR, China .. North Korea.. you got a straight trade of one set of screwed up for a new set of screwed combined with a new set of people in charge who don't care about their new serfs who will be cast under the bus of progress and massive police states to control them and assure that no one disrupts the new power norm.

humans suck at being nice and actually trying socialism is truly out of the reach of humanity since humans don't care about much outside of their local groups.

put a man on an island with everything he needs .. free health care, affordable natural food, clean water and a place to hang his hat.. he will destroy this place and turn it into a wasteland, why? because he can not be content, nor domesticated for he is a wild beast who attempts at being civilized to mate and procreate. everything else about the creature is greed, destroy, take, steel, lie and cheat.
 
I simply despise that people think that socialism means dictatorship .. or that Venezuela's problem is socialism when like in fact its not.. its corruption and plundering mixed with dictator mentality and outside interference into internal issues.

socialism is not a bad work nor should be cast in that light.

hell communism is also not a bad word, since it has never been even tried or attempted let alone any nation set a course to even achieve it. the soviet union included. in the case of the soviet union, DDR, China .. North Korea.. you got a straight trade of one set of screwed up for a new set of screwed combined with a new set of people in charge who don't care about their new serfs who will be cast under the bus of progress and massive police states to control them and assure that no one disrupts the new power norm.

humans suck at being nice and actually trying socialism is truly out of the reach of humanity since humans don't care about much outside of their local groups.

put a man on an island with everything he needs .. free health care, affordable natural food, clean water and a place to hang his hat.. he will destroy this place and turn it into a wasteland, why? because he can not be content, nor domesticated for he is a wild beast who attempts at being civilized to mate and procreate. everything else about the creature is greed, destroy, take, steel, lie and cheat.
Now now, let's not be so nihilistic!

Human nature has a lot of shades of everything, and human individuals come in so many different varieties we'll never finish understanding them/us.

But I agree socialism does not equate with dictatorship. There have been socialist dictatorships, and there have been capitalist ones (and there are still both of them). There are working socialist structures, and working capitalist structures, and working communist structures, too. Things can develop in so many unforeseen ways that we should never rule out entirely new twists and turns. Isn't that what AH teaches us, too?

But I agree with a previous poster: this OP question is too broad to be answered sensibly.
 
Oh, and as much as I identify as a (weird sort of) socialist, too:
Venezuela's problems DO have a lot to do with particular socialist structures, too. Denying that just means deliberately trying to transcendentalise socialism into some untouchable ideal, which isn't serving any purpose.
Chavez's experiment had already learnt some lessons from 20th century socialist mistakes.
We need to learn from his mistakes, too, not blame them on something else (although of course problems like sinking PDVSA output often have many different causes - but that doesn't exculpate the typically socialist structural problems among them).
 
Oh, and as much as I identify as a (weird sort of) socialist, too:
Venezuela's problems DO have a lot to do with particular socialist structures, too. Denying that just means deliberately trying to transcendentalise socialism into some untouchable ideal, which isn't serving any purpose.
Chavez's experiment had already learnt some lessons from 20th century socialist mistakes.
We need to learn from his mistakes, too, not blame them on something else (although of course problems like sinking PDVSA output often have many different causes - but that doesn't exculpate the typically socialist structural problems among them).
well lets say that the policy of self inflicting gun shot to the economic head by pissing off US interests and then thinking that Venezuela is some super self contained entity that can persevere through all things while the rich run off with everything nailed down.

it wasn't socialism that killed Venezuela .. it was horrendous inept leadership who put the nation at risk for the sake of ego and feeding their oligarch class until they exploded into a gluttony of orgasmic greed. combine that with the disastrous economic policies and well.. you get self implosion. I mean if that was the case . Norway, Sweden or Germany should be up the creek with out a paddle

I agree that we should learn from the mistakes of Chavez 100%. However Venezuela was no more democracy than say Peron based Argentina.

and i still think humans suck in groups of more than 20 at anyone time
 
and i still think humans suck in groups of more than 20 at anyone time
Regarding "groups", I would agree with you in the strict sense of that word, and I'm particularly fond of Rogers Brubaker's criticism of "groupism" here: Much of the time, our society functions without "groups" doing the things that are being done in or against their interests.

Small groups of people can be awful, too. I, for one, am so glad I've escaped my home village for a city...
 
Which form of Communism or Socialism are you referring to?
you forgot Belgium version of Socialism: the Political Mafia

See the Socialist party of Belgium is involved in allot political scandals and crime in that Kingdom
Every major or little Corruption scandal, sex scandal or political murder in Belgium and as felons you find the Walloon or flemish socialist.
It even went so far that Socialist put there people in key position in Justice department to manipulate investigation against them...

This form of Socialism actually worst as Venezuela form Socialism...
 
Anyways as my long list the other day points out there are a great veraity of schools of thought within Socialism and Communism, and thats not without getting into things like Anarchism or Social Democracy. You could easily see them all being in place and still being in conflict. Add into the fact that regardless of Ideology humans will find ways to do great things for one another and to do terrible things to one another. Especially when you have the conflict between nation states vs internationalism.

A world with all these ideologies are dominate and conflicting with other would be a little different but I think it might be fun for world building purposes. :)
 
Regarding "groups", I would agree with you in the strict sense of that word, and I'm particularly fond of Rogers Brubaker's criticism of "groupism" here: Much of the time, our society functions without "groups" doing the things that are being done in or against their interests.

Small groups of people can be awful, too. I, for one, am so glad I've escaped my home village for a city...
oh I can fully understand and relate …

I lived in 4 different countries - currently Belarus - born and raised in the USA where I have lived in Florida, Detroit Michigan, Washington DC and Arizona. I've been to over 40 different countries. actually small villages can be worse since there is no choice but to have to blend in or you become ostracized.

But I am a firm believer in socialism at least the semi- to democratic forms of it. there is room in this world for both capitalism and socialism to co exist and the people and state to benefit from both with a private sector that is driving innovation and change with the ability to gain profit but not at the expense of people. not by turning them into drones or slaves.
 
In a world where few or no countries retain capitalism, where Communism/Socialism was a great success. What would politics, society, technology, etc. be like? What would be the consequences? Would it survive?
The POD could be before 1920 or far back if required for success in other countries.

May I ask if the OP is an American? Communism and Socialism are two very different beasts.

Which form of Communism or Socialism are you referring to

Quite - The difference between the democratic socialist traditions of the UK Labour party ( at least before the Corbyn entryism) and the Communist Party GB or the Socialist Workers Party is like chalk and cheese ( as is the difference between CPGB & SWP!)

For information the SWP is a Trotskyist far left political party in the UK as, interestingly, is the Socialist Party)
 
Last edited:
Top