Out of all the ideologies and tendencies listed here, market socialism (not the Chinese one of course) was never tried.
So someone tried to implement Posadism?
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".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.
and more group prison resorts .. fun funOr just as mediocre as today, but with more collectivization and hopefully less telemarketing.
I am really interested by Buddhist Socialism, and wonder how would it function.Which form of Communism or Socialism are you referring to?
There probably are others but then there are quite a number of schools of thought
- 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
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 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.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"?
Now now, let's not be so nihilistic!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.
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.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).
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.and i still think humans suck in groups of more than 20 at anyone time
you forgot Belgium version of Socialism: the Political MafiaWhich form of Communism or Socialism are you referring to?
oh I can fully understand and relate …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...
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.
Which form of Communism or Socialism are you referring to