The Soviet Union collapsed and was socialist. Explain.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Gary Siete

Canada is "socialist" and hasn't collapsed. Explain.
Australia is "socialist" and hasn't collapsed. Explain.
Great Britain is "socialist" and hasn't collapsed. Explain.
Japan is "socialist" and hasn't collapsed. Explain.
China is "socialist" and hasn't collapsed. Explain.
dot.. dot... dot...

The first four countries you named are capitalist countries. With the exception of China, there is unanimous consensus that they are capitalist. Canada and Australia are more free market than the US according to the Heritage Foundation.

China is somewhat of a special case ; it is capitalist but not free market capitalist. The Chinese economic system is "state capitalist", i.e. along the lines of 19th century France, and could be considered socialist due to the large government involvement in the economy. Today's China is more like what Chiang Kai Shek's vision of China's future was rather than Mao's ; a mixed economy coupled with a repressive dictatorship, as opposed to a command economy with an extremely repressive dictatorship. (Interestingly, Chiang has been rehabilitated in the Chinese government's official view of history ; they regard him as a flawed patriot who wanted a strong China but didn't have what it took to pull it off, whereas during the Mao years and even into the Deng years he was regarded as a reactionary upholder of the old order.)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by juppiter

Without a doubt, the US is not a capitalist country. We have a mixed economy. I took an online citizenship test recently, and the only question out of 96 questions I got wrong was "what type of economy does the US have, socialist, capitalist, or none of the above?" I put none of the above and was graded wrong even though I was right.

Anyway, the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers state, not a good example of socialism in practice. For a better example, see Cuba.

The only country that made Marxian socialism work was Yugoslavia.

If Nagy and Dubcek had been able to hold on to power in Hungary and Czechoslovakia respectively and the USSR had not invaded, then those countries would have had workable Marxian socialism in practice. As it was, Hungary under Kadar was economically better off than most communist countries even though there was very little freedom. The Spanish Republicans would have probably gone for a Titoist form of socialism, although realistically if they had won the Spanish Civil War they would not have had enough time to make it work as Hitler would have invaded Spain and put it into an even worse condition than it was already in.

[wrench409]

The Soviet system of Socialism was BAD.

The current system of Socialism is GOOD.

That seems to be the current train of thought on Socialism.

[Oerdin]

The Soviet Union was communist, meaning the government owned ALL means of production (no privately owned land or businesses at all), not socialist. Yes, they had socialist in their name but East Germany had Democratic in it's name however it wasn't democratic just like the USSR was communist and not socialist.

[GregW]

In my idealistic version of socialism the workers own the business where they work. As owners they have as much say in corporate policy as the managers and financiers they hire to do the paperwork. This form of collectivism can create some very profitable companies while be very difficult places for workers to goof off.

PS - FWIW The Soviet Union was NOT socialist in any way shape or form. It was run as a set of government owned economic segments that were generally, except for the military, starved of capital. Eventually it collapsed into unrestrained or regulated criminal capitalism. The collapse was not much of a change. Sort of like Wall Street run by the Mob.