Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, I meant the USSR was an actual socialist country with aspirations toward communism. Sorry if that was unclear.
I was taught that socialism was where the government owned key industries (coal, steel, transportation and communication links, possibly some banks) while the bulk of the agricultural land and its produce, and the commerce remained in private hands. This was common in Western Europe pre-1980 (especially in the UK, and I think in France as well). So I guess this would be called a mixed economy.
Yes.
Quote:
What would be the right term for the Scandinavian system? Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism? My hunch is the former, given I think (but not sure) that all (or nearly all) big industry like Volvo and such remain in private hands, but the wealthy and the larger corporations are taxed at high rates so as to provide key services to the population widely regarded as a human right (health care, education, etc). Am I on target?
The split between the dictatorship of Lenin & the democracy of Luxembourg was very similar between the commie centralism of Marx & the decentralized democratic socialists of Bakukin (& even earlier the ideological rifts between Marx & what are somewhat pejoratively known as the "utopian" socialists).
Syndicalism, while technically not communism, though they were a big help to the Communists against the Fascists & Nazis not only in Iberia but also during WWII with the various Popular Front & Partisan movements.
...it's communism (well, more accurately rhetorical aspiration to communism) only if the government abolishes all non-state ownership of "the means of production" (farms, forests, land, minerals, mines, factories, banks, etc). If the issue in question is not about that, then the discussion's not about communism.
The Lenistas early on realized their society was not ready for communism, that's why they put socialist instead in the title of their state.
They wanted to work to build communism in their society and frankly one must acknowledge that their fights with the national socialists & fascist corporatists during the 2nd Great War (not to mention their Iberian & Cold War brawls with the two, who were by the way, backed by the Atlantic plantation powers & their allies) derailed a lot of those efforts (Stalinism didn't really kick in until the Iberian altercation).
This seems to have developed after Khrustie recognized the right for others (like the 3rd Way Titoisos) to develop communism on their own terms rather than a one size fits all Stalinist Soviet model.
The Communist parties in the Atlantic bloc were often at odds with the Maoist/Afro-Asian Asabiya/Bandung Jamia, the former also were often hijacked by their respective national bourgeoisie. Then they culturally hijacked the bureaucratic state capitalists that masquerade as communists. Especially popular with their neo-colonial wards & dependents before the late 80's & early 90's.
Again there are strains of Marxism that don't advocate dictatorships instead come into its own in a society democratically.
Also there the (de)Lux(em)burgers who are revolutionary Democratic Socialists intermediate between Marxism & other forms of socialism.
Plenty of flavas.
Forgot to mention that the bolded above DOES NOT ENTAIL COLLABORATING NOR COLLUDING WITH THE GLOBALIST PLANTATION SYSTEM IN EITHER ITS DISASTER "FREE" OR BUREAUCRATIC STATE CAPITALIST INCARNATIONS.
Many are legitimately leery of the prospects of a Saheedi Soviet Sponsored State Socialist Strongman (especially given the mentality of the current generation that revels in aping & assimilating the most disgusting & despicable aspects of massah & the plantation) BUT one must not also forget the Sudani Ibrahim Zakariya, a leader of the Commie International trade union orgs during & after Khrusie acknowledged the different paths & supported organizations outside the State Stalinist Soviet model.
After doing more research I would have to say the confusion is caused by the fact that we keep refering to the USA as a capitalist society and thus apply the evil we see to capitalism. When in fact the USA is not capitalism at all. We have a top down govt interfered economy where a tremendous amount of political favor is doled out.
A good term I have heard is statism which is a better term than crony capitalism as crony capitalism still contains the term capitalism when it is anything but.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
