The Socialism/Communism Thread

Google the nordic model. That explains it.
For example:

In the Danish mixed welfare-state economy, private sector expenditures account for more than half of the net national income. Public expenditure is directed primarily toward health and social services, education, economic affairs, foreign affairs, and national defense. The government does not have significant commercial or industrial income.
 
Last edited:
Is the Democratic People’s Republic of NK democratic?
My wiki link was not about the name, but the contents of the article.

Just seems to me that every time a country that is run by socialist goes bad it is never blamed on socialism, is just that it never seems to be successful anywhere but in a classroom. The dems always bring up the Nordic countries that really only have gov. run healthcare just like a lot of places.
 
You say you’re an “unabashed capitalist,” but what does that mean? Just that you believe in the power of markets? If so, that doesn’t make you a capitalist alone.

Likewise, being a communist or socialist doesn’t necessitate belief in a command economy just because past countries operated under these auspices. There is a great tradition of market socialism, and most socialists in the 21st century recognize the efficiency of markets when well-regulated and competitive.

I would argue that a communist definitely believes in a command economy, while a socialist does not necessarily.

I'm not sure why believe in the power of free markets is not enough to be a capitalist. Sorry I don't pass your litmus test. I tend to believe that a free market (with certain minimum guardrails) tends to provide the best solutions for most problems. IMHO, it's a much better solution than economies that are centrally planned or where the government owns the means of production, two systems that I have actually lived in.

I had state previously that I live in Costa Rica that has a socialist model similar to many European countries. Beyond socialized medicine and a strong public education, the CR model also had state owned insurance, energy, telecom, banking and alcohol. In the last decades they have gradually opened up those sectors: banking in the 90s (state still has 2.5 banks, accounting for about half the market), telecom in the late 00s (state company has dropped down to about a 33% share...man that was a nightmare...use to have to wait a year or two for a new phone line) and insurance about ten years ago (state still dominates the market with a 80% share). Energy has allowed public producers, but they have to sell only to the state and distribution is still through the state monopoly. Alcohol production is still in state hands even though it makes no sense (loses money incredibly). Back in the 50s and 60s, the state owning these industries probably had a positive impact in economic development, but eventually the model grew obsolete and we have slowly made the right adjustments.
 
We have worker co-ops as well. Some do well, some are very poorly managed and some are downright corrupt...just like anything else I suppose.
 
Having done some consulting for a financial co-op recently...I actually arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion. The 40,000 workers in the co-op elect a 50 person governing body that then elects a nine person board that oversees the management team. The senior managers spend more time on trying to manage the politics of the three boards than actually running the company.

I do like enterprises where employees have a stake. Think its good business.
 
China is a pretty good example of a successful socialist country, for all their flaws. Same for the USSR. Despite their flaws, they managed to create a state that rivaled the power of the most powerful capitalist country to ever exist. China is clearly the current rival to American hegemony, as well.

Despite their their flaws . Really, should i make a list. No amount of military success is worth what their people have been thu.
 
Last edited:
They didn’t do this because of altruism or because they wanted to spread freedom. They did it because they knew that socialist economies in the third world would be a direct threat to U.S. economic hegemony.

You already did, and I’m almost certain I’m far more aware of China’s flaws than you.

If that’s your response to my detailed, lengthy post, then I don’t think there’s a point engaging with you anymore. Goodbye!
What you call flaws i would call evil, but i guess we have to agree to disagree. I could add a lot to the list. Would be interested to know your background and career. I am new here, you have make some good points, i certainly had not considered the situation in India.
 
We basically have three types of co-ops down here: agricultural, financial (kind of like a credit union) and service. This co-op is financial, catering towards public sector educators. I actually caught a mistake in what I wrote previously...its not 40,000 workers, but rather affiliates (number might be a bit off but its roughly in that ballpark).
They have about 600k clients (use to be that you had to be an educator to be a client, bit that no longer the case). Then you have the 40,000 affiliates who are persons that have a stake in the co-op (IIRC it was a mix of one time deposit and then a monthly deduction from your salary at a fixed amount, all employees are automatically affiliates). That "investment" allows you to participate in the co-ops profits as well as participate in the co-op elections.

Every year, usually in Q4, the senior staff does a roadshow across the country for the affiliates. Basically a dog and pony show to communicate financial and social results. Some of these events are fairly large, some are very small. Periodically (every 3 years?) there is an election for the 50 person governing body (with a roughly 10-15% participation rate). Those elections are like a popularity contests...usually won by longtime educators in the bigger school systems. That governing body meets quarterly; their big job is naming the Managing Director as well as the 9 person board that acts broadly as a Board of Directors (those directors can either be from the 50 person governing body or independent): that board meets monthly to oversee the operation. The biggest challenge is for the 50 person Governing Body to name a competent 9 person board; usually the educators don't know much about finance. From the time I was there, the Managing Director spent most of his time catering towards the 50 person board, dishing all sorts of pork to keep them happy.

Recently we had another co-op (health care workers) that has basically gone bust. Their board of directors had no independent members and was full of health care workers that had little or no experience in finance. They failed to adequately comprehend the risk implications of the things their management team was doing until it was too late to catch.
 
Thanks again for the time and detail. It gets back into the piece of any enterprise being susceptible to poor management/structure, I suppose.

There has to be a balance between people in the top positions being able to navigate a world that is dominated by capitalist finance and also being amenable to the reasonable worker demands. After all, it’s still a business and needs to make money for workers to receive any sort of benefit from the co-op to begin with.

End of the day, I want people to be able to at least imagine a better world. Especially when it comes to work and how we work as humans.

The Mondragon Corporation in Spain is a good example of a well-run co-op enterprise that operates at a high level. That being said, the pitfalls of operating as a worker-owned enterprise in a capitalist world still exist. That’s a problem that I don’t think anyone really has an answer to at this point.
 
This gentleman has quite a different take on India


India was very late to experiencing modern economic growth. The escape from economic stagnation, the normal condition of humanity, became apparent in the U.K. and the U.S. in the 1800s. India remained mostly stagnant until 1991. In that year, under Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Singh, India enacted economic reforms that have allowed growth to take off.

Post-independence India was committed to socialism and the development of the domestic economy to the exclusion of the rest of the world. Indian National Congress governments under Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi put the state at the center of the economy, with five-year plans, import substitution, industrial policy, and severe restrictions on foreign trade and investment. Nehru was widely praised as a visionary leader striking out against Westernized capitalism.

Unsurprisingly, this policy program didn’t work. Economists in the 20th century referred derisively to the “Hindu rate of growth,” the unusually low GDP growth rate that India experienced for a developing country. But the legacy of Nehru was hard to shake politically.

Rao was finally able to do it in 1991, when a balance-of-payments crisis forced the government to turn away from socialism, but his contribution was as an experienced parliamentarian, not as the ideas guy. For ideas, he needed Singh, whom he appointed finance minister despite Singh’s having never served in parliament at all. Singh was an Oxford-educated economist who had previously been governor of India’s central bank. He was born in present-day Pakistan and his family moved to newly independent India after the Partition. He had studied India’s economy for decades and knew what needed to be done.

In 1991, Singh eliminated the License Raj that had replaced the British Raj as the oppressor of the Indian people. He removed prohibitions on foreign direct investment. He removed currency controls and deregulated the financial sector. He slashed tariffs and other trade barriers. He privatized state-owned companies. Growth took off and hasn’t looked back.

The reason we care about that GDP-per-capita graph is because that line shooting up corresponds with so many other things we care about. Since 1991:

These facts help clarify what economist Robert Lucas meant when he said that once you start to think about economic growth, it’s hard to think about anything else. India’s economic liberalization, enacted by Singh as finance minister and continued in fits and starts since then, has improved the well-being of hundreds of millions of people in the most fundamental ways. Markets have done for Indians what decades of government policies could not.

Singh became prime minister in 2004 and won a second five-year term in 2009. He led coalition governments that relied on left-wing parties for support and was unable to liberalize the economy much further. His major advance as head of government was improving India’s relationship with the U.S. India had been closer to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Singh realized times had changed and had strong personal relationships with both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, while deepening the business ties between the U.S. and India.

That India has only partially embraced markets and still retains significant barriers to growth only makes these gains more impressive. Markets are so powerful that even a partial move toward them can deliver these benefits.

“We must restore to the creation of wealth its proper place in the development process,” Singh said in his 1991 budget speech in parliament. “Without it, we cannot remove the stigma of abject poverty, ignorance, and disease.” Singh’s stint as prime minister was not all that it could have been, and India still has a lot of work to do to free its markets and allow Indians to thrive. But when confronted with a crisis in 1991, Singh knew what to do, he did it, and it worked.

Manmohan Singh made clear the need for markets and international economic engagement in a country with a history of socialism and autarky. Today, because the Indian government implemented Singh’s reforms, hundreds of millions of people are no longer living in extreme poverty. What an accomplishment, and what a legacy. R.I.P.

 
Back
Top