Democratic Socialism in Practice - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14738284
@ Pants-of-dog
Pants-of-dog wrote:Ombrageux 's posts tend to ge Euro-centric, which is consistent with his arguments about how white poeple are better than everyone else.

I will make my own judgements about the views of my interlocutors.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Europe seems to have widespread support for social democracy, but very little support for democratic socialism.

The European social democracy is a political movement, and thus her program is dynamic. In this way she can retain a certain support.
#14738291
@ Pants-of-dog
Pants-of-dog wrote:First of all, I do not think the Chilean system was significantly less developed than Europe at the time, much like today.

Second of all, history shows us that it was the proletariat of the developing world that was more amenable to socialism than their European counterpart. This suggests that Marx was incorrect about that.

Nice try, but you will understand that I do not comment on your first point with regard to Chile. The second point is intriguing, and actually deserves a discussion in the Marxism subforum. Let me just say, that this also depends on the fraction of peasants within the population. The peasantry has always given the socialists a headache. It is commonly conservative, and prefers the private property of the farms. Moreover, private property in agriculture is highly productive. The optimal scale of production varies, depending on the crops or livestock. It is true that in some cases the peasants will unite by forming a corporation, for instance in order to process the crops. But this is not an immutable rule.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, he was a democratic socialist, while these others were social democrats.

Those other men all called themselves socialists. And their societies called them socialists. They obtained their political formation immediately after WWII, when the realization of socialism still seemed a possibility, albeit remote. These are the facts. Of course, feel free to believe otherwise.

It was mainly due to the reminiscence of the economic depression in the thirties, that after WWII the popularity of socialism continued. However, in the fifties the global economy boomed, and the ideology of socialism was replaced by the mixed economy. The Godesberger Programm of the SPD marks this turning-point. Thus these great men became the last generation of full-blooded socialists. Their fate was tragic but unavoidable. Probably we must be happy, that socialism is not necessary.
#14738359
Stegerwald wrote:@ Pants-of-dog

I will make my own judgements about the views of my interlocutors.

The European social democracy is a political movement, and thus her program is dynamic. In this way she can retain a certain support.


Go ahead and make your opinion about Ombrageux. If he is still around.

Your point about social democracy has nothing to do with what I said.

----------------

TheRedBaron wrote:Nice try, but you will understand that I do not comment on your first point with regard to Chile.


Why not? How can we have a discussion about how democratic socialism is practiced if you are going to ignore ine of the only existing examples?

The second point is intriguing, and actually deserves a discussion in the Marxism subforum. Let me just say, that this also depends on the fraction of peasants within the population. The peasantry has always given the socialists a headache. It is commonly conservative, and prefers the private property of the farms. Moreover, private property in agriculture is highly productive. The optimal scale of production varies, depending on the crops or livestock. It is true that in some cases the peasants will unite by forming a corporation, for instance in order to process the crops. But this is not an immutable rule.


This is contradicted by the history of socialism. There has been no successful socialist movement that did not depend heavily on the peasants.

Those other men all called themselves socialists. And their societies called them socialists. They obtained their political formation immediately after WWII, when the realization of socialism still seemed a possibility, albeit remote. These are the facts. Of course, feel free to believe otherwise.


Did they actively and openly work towards the dismantling of capitalism and giving the means of production to the working class, or did they just nationalise some key industries and enact a few social reforms?
#14739138
@ Pants-of-dog
Pants-of-dog wrote:How can we have a discussion about how democratic socialism is practiced if you are going to ignore ine of the only existing examples?

I do not ignore Chile under Allende. However, my impression is that this case is not instructive. My time is better spent elsewhere. Besides, my Spanish is not that good. ;)
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is contradicted by the history of socialism. There has been no successful socialist movement that did not depend heavily on the peasants.

Peasants were not deciding in the German revolution of 1918 or in the rise to power of Mitterrand in 1982. Nevertheless, in other regions and times the peasantry has indeed shaped history. Unfortunately, the small farmers belong to the least developed classes of society. The village is their community. Therefore they are never an autonomous driving force of social progress. In western Europe the small farmers were usually reactionary. Elsewhere they may have been revolutionary, but these revolts commonly ended in a dictature. In essence the parliamentary democracy is a bourgeois find.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Did they actively and openly work towards the dismantling of capitalism and giving the means of production to the working class, or did they just nationalise some key industries and enact a few social reforms?

I wonder what you mean by "giving the means of production to the working class" (I put my money on their pension funds). Anyway, these European democratic socialists did work towards the nationalization of big business. Moreover, they advocated the participation of the workers, and promoted the works councils. However, the majority of the people refused to give their policies a durable support. The socialist leaders did not fail because they lacked resolution, but because they were democrats. They realized that a good policy must foster wellbeing and not a dogma.
#14739201
TheRedBaron wrote:@ Pants-of-dog

I do not ignore Chile under Allende. However, my impression is that this case is not instructive. My time is better spent elsewhere. Besides, my Spanish is not that good. ;)

Peasants were not deciding in the German revolution of 1918 or in the rise to power of Mitterrand in 1982. Nevertheless, in other regions and times the peasantry has indeed shaped history. Unfortunately, the small farmers belong to the least developed classes of society. The village is their community. Therefore they are never an autonomous driving force of social progress. In western Europe the small farmers were usually reactionary. Elsewhere they may have been revolutionary, but these revolts commonly ended in a dictature. In essence the parliamentary democracy is a bourgeois find.


I do not think Mitterand was a socialist. He was a left leaning democratic liberal.

The German revolution is also very questionable, as they did not strip the aristocracy of their power, and refused to put the means of production into the hands of workers so as not to upset the conservtaive and reactionary groups.

As to the topic of peasants, I cannot think of a single successful socialist movement that did not include peasants in the struggle. Sandino, for example, was a peasant.

I wonder what you mean by "giving the means of production to the working class" (I put my money on their pension funds).


The difference between social democrats (who are left leaning capitalists) and democratic socialists (who are trying to get rid of capitalism through non-authoritarian means) is their support of capitalism. In capitalism, the owners of the business own the means of producing goods and services. In socialism, the means of production are owned by the workers.

Anyway, these European democratic socialists did work towards the nationalization of big business. Moreover, they advocated the participation of the workers, and promoted the works councils. However, the majority of the people refused to give their policies a durable support. The socialist leaders did not fail because they lacked resolution, but because they were democrats. They realized that a good policy must foster wellbeing and the not a dogma.


The major obstacle to democratic socialism is that you have to convince the vast majority of the population to support socialism even before you implement it.
#14740480
@ Pants-of-dog
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think Mitterand was a socialist. He was a left leaning democratic liberal.

You are wrong. Trust me, I have even seen his presidential debates with Giscard d'Estaing (2x) and with Chirac. Note, that the fate of Mitterrand is somewhat tragic. In 1984 his socialist policies had failed, and in 1986 the electorate preferred the right-wing parties. In the same period the PCF was reduced to rubble and insignificance.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The German revolution is also very questionable, as they did not strip the aristocracy of their power, and refused to put the means of production into the hands of workers so as not to upset the conservtaive and reactionary groups.

During WWI the SPD fell apart into MSPD and USPD. Imho the line of action of the MSPD was well-considered, and brought about the maximum possible number of reforms. In 1919 the MSPD gave up power, and organized democratic elections. The party knew that the army would eventually break a proletarian dictature (moreover, probably by that time the MSPD politicians were already true democrats). In this way the MSPD succeeded in preventing the outbreak of a civil war, as opposed to the Russian extremists under Uljanov (Lenin).

The election showed that indeed the socialists did not dispose of the democratic majority. Ebert formed a government with the SPD, the Zentrum and the Deutsche Demokratische Partei. The USPD became destabilized, and the Spartakus Bund, an even more extremist offspring, changed into the KPD, a Leninist (not democratic) party. Many reforms were realized, but the establishment of a system of workers councils failed.

Incidentally, the Attlee government in England (1945-1951) is a further example of a successful socialist movement, without the support of the farmers. It encouraged the Europese socialists, because they hoped that socialism would spread over the whole Commonwealth. But also her the success did not last, for eventually Attlee was rejected by the British electorate. I must definitely read some books about this period.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I cannot think of a single successful socialist movement that did not include peasants in the struggle. Sandino, for example, was a peasant.

I can not think of a single socialist movement, that was both democratic and durable. The history of socialism is a succession of failures. Nowadays, the socialist ideology is bankrupt.

Sandino was a militia leader, who engaged in guerrilla warfare. I do not sympathize with violent resistance. In fact I oppose it, except for extreme cases such as the resistance against genocide or mass executions. I see no connection whatever between guerrilla warfare and democratic socialism.
Pants-of-dog wrote:In socialism, the means of production are owned by the workers.

This remark is rather non-committal. It can imply the ownership by institutional investors such as pension funds or insurance companies. Other forms are also conceivable. Nobody impedes the formation of corporative enterprises, and yes, some do exist and are even profitable. However, they remain rare.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The major obstacle to democratic socialism is that you have to convince the vast majority of the population to support socialism even before you implement it.

Why do you still want to recruit people for socialism, when they have already concluded that it does not work? Are you wiser than the vast majority of the population?
#14740511
TheRedBaron wrote:@ Pants-of-dog

You are wrong. Trust me, I have even seen his presidential debates with Giscard d'Estaing (2x) and with Chirac. Note, that the fate of Mitterrand is somewhat tragic. In 1984 his socialist policies had failed, and in 1986 the electorate preferred the right-wing parties. In the same period the PCF was reduced to rubble and insignificance.


Did he actively work twards an end to capitalism? Did he actively try to hand the means of production to the workers?

If not, he was not a socialist.

I can not think of a single socialist movement, that was both democratic and durable. The history of socialism is a succession of failures. Nowadays, the socialist ideology is bankrupt.


And nowmwe get back to the Chilean example, where it was working until the US deliberately engaged in destroying it.

Sandino was a militia leader, who engaged in guerrilla warfare. I do not sympathize with violent resistance. In fact I oppose it, except for extreme cases such as the resistance against genocide or mass executions. I see no connection whatever between guerrilla warfare and democratic socialism.


Your moral opinion on tactics does not contradict my point that peasants are an integral part of any successful socialist movement, democratic or not.

And the fact remains that at the time, Nicaragua was fighting a war against the US invaders. Those of you who have not lived ths reality have the luxury of believing in peaceful movements. But sometimes you need guns to defend democracy.

This remark is rather non-committal. It can imply the ownership by institutional investors such as pension funds or insurance companies. Other forms are also conceivable. Nobody impedes the formation of corporative enterprises, and yes, some do exist and are even profitable. However, they remain rare.


It is probably one of the most famous phrases from Marx. The point is that businesses must be owned by the workers if we want to call it socialism.

Why do you still want to recruit people for socialism, when they have already concluded that it does not work? Are you wiser than the vast majority of the population?


The vast majority of the population seems to support a system where we bomb brown peope for their oil, we then buy the oil from the people who bombed others, put it in our cars, and then pollute to the point of disastrous climate change.

Does that seem wise to you?
#14740922
@ Stegerwald
Stegerwald wrote:You have not yet addressed the Scandinavian states.

You are right. However, I have once compared the economic growth rates of Sweden, Germany and France. Sweden did not excel, and between 1975 and 1995 the Swedish growth rate was poor. In this period Sweden had a lower productivity per worker and per hour than Germany and France. Clearly the Swedish model of the fifties and sixties experienced a long lasting crisis.

Besides, I had family in the German Democratic Republic, and thus have insight in the life under a Leninist regime. It was a political dictature, which is morally wrong. In some aspects the regime was successful: there was complete employment. Since the state tried to control its citizens, he provided for youth organizations and brigades at work. Thus social isolation was minimized. On the other hand, the dictature and the command economy made life miserable. Consumers had little freedom of choice. Luxury goods were scarce. Censorship mutilated the mass media, and made a caricature of the truth. Some expressions of culture were strongly discouraged, because they were supposed to be bourgeois. Other cultural events were furthered, although people disliked them. The planned economy did not give enterprising people full play. All in all, life was dull and hopeless. Alienation was much larger than in capitalism.

Unfortunately, democratic socialism will also be haunted by many of these problems. It aims to increase security, and therefore it distrusts personal initiative. In its traditional form it wants to increase productivity, at the cost of product differentiation. It is almost impossible to reconcile socialism with pluralism in politics and in the economy. These are indications, that socialism violates human nature. Sorry.
#14741234
@ Pants-of-dog
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your moral opinion on tactics does not contradict my point that peasants are an integral part of any successful socialist movement, democratic or not.

The reluctance to engage in violent resistance is not a tactic, but a principle. Change must be brought about by reforms, and not by revolutions. Evidently socialism can be reformist. But unfortunately it has been dominated by the propagation of the classwar. Even nowadays, many social democrats show resentment and suspicion with respect to private trade and industry. This is preposterous, because obviously we all benefit from entrepreneurial activities.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And the fact remains that at the time, Nicaragua was fighting a war against the US invaders.

There is a cultural gap between the west and the Latin-American states. The book "Why nations fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson helped me to understand the causes. They argue that successful states have inclusive politics and economics. Here inclusion implies the universal freedom to participate in politics and economics. Such states motivate the people to take initiatives, and to improve their living conditions. The western states exemplify these systems.

On the other hand, many states are governed by a small elite. This impedes participation. Acemoglu and Robinson call them extractive, because the elite exploits the private trade and industry in order to enrich themselves. This discourages the people, and consequently such state lack innovation. The feudal system is an extreme example. However, Acemoglu and Robinson state that also Latin-America still tends towards extractive practices.

They explain the difference between Latin-America and, let us say, North-America by the different approach during the colonization. In the seventeenth century the colonization was still commonly extractive. A tiny elite ruled over the common people, and forced them to do compulsory labour. In North-America this system failed. Thus the Virginia Company, and the big landowners in Maryland and Carolina all had to give political and economic rights to the common colonists.

In Latin-America the Spanish also established a small elite, and called this system the encomienda. The resistance of the Indians was suppressed. Later the elite founded cities in order to facilitate exploitation (the reduciones). The compulsory labour was called mita. Such systems endured until the nineteenth century.

In this way North- and South-America have developed different social institutions. Obviously those in North-America are superior (inclusive). It is a slow and painful process to change institutions.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Those of you who have not lived ths reality have the luxury of believing in peaceful movements. But sometimes you need guns to defend democracy.

I fulfilled the compulsory military service, and I take pride in it.

Once again, revolutions or foreign invasions are risky, and I disapprove of them. Often the new regime simply continues in the old way, although it naturally disposes of another basis of power. Sometimes the new regime is worse than the old one. Just look at the French revolution, or the Leninist coup d'état in Russia, or the fascist coup d'état in Italy and Germany, or use your own imagination. Revolutions may even create a total anarchy and disorder.

By the way, there is this joke about Italian fascism: an Italian says: "Two men are needed to correct the mistakes of Mussolini". The other asks: "Two statesmen?" The reply: "No, two police officers". Or, the Pope prays that the eyes of Il Duce will be opened. The rest of Italy prays that he will finally close them. ;)

It is true that sometimes revolutions erupt in a spontaneous manner, and then the leaders can seize the opportunity to extort beneficial changes, often also participation. At the same time, the leaders must make it a primary concern to tone down the aggression. It will help, when the new rule includes the acceptable parts of the old regime.

Finally, note that democratic socialism requires lots of coordination, and this depends heavily on the experience of the people with decent institutions. When socialism does not work in the west, it will be disastrous elsewhere.
#14741275
TheRedBaron wrote:The reluctance to engage in violent resistance is not a tactic, but a principle. Change must be brought about by reforms, and not by revolutions. Evidently socialism can be reformist. But unfortunately it has been dominated by the propagation of the classwar. Even nowadays, many social democrats show resentment and suspicion with respect to private trade and industry. This is preposterous, because obviously we all benefit from entrepreneurial activities.


Pacifism can be a tactic, or a matter of principle, or both.

Change can be brought about by reforms or by revolution. One is not inherently better than the other.

You keep talking about social democrats as if they were socialists. They are not.

We do not all benefit from entrepreneurial activities. The protesters at Standing Rock do not benefit from the pipeline. I do not benefit from people using their cars to commute. The developing world does not benefit from the capitalist exploitation imposed on them by the developed world.

Again, we were discussing peasants. Since you seem to be ignoring that point, I will assume that you concede the point.

There is a cultural gap between the west and the Latin-American states. The book "Why nations fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson helped me to understand the causes. They argue that successful states have inclusive politics and economics. Here inclusion implies the universal freedom to participate in politics and economics. Such states motivate the people to take initiatives, and to improve their living conditions. The western states exemplify these systems.


Latin America is part of the west.

Now, we were discussing the necessity or lack thereof for violence in opposing capitalism. I pointed out that often capitalist countries will send their troops to developing countries to stop any local attempts at inclusive leftist politics. Do you understand why locals would take up arms to oppose the invading soldiers?

On the other hand, many states are governed by a small elite. This impedes participation. Acemoglu and Robinson call them extractive, because the elite exploits the private trade and industry in order to enrich themselves. This discourages the people, and consequently such state lack innovation. The feudal system is an extreme example. However, Acemoglu and Robinson state that also Latin-America still tends towards extractive practices.


This is probably due to the legacy of US intervention in Latin America, where they would prop up a right wing dictator whose job it was to extract as much wealth as possible and send it to the US.

They explain the difference between Latin-America and, let us say, North-America by the different approach during the colonization. In the seventeenth century the colonization was still commonly extractive. A tiny elite ruled over the common people, and forced them to do compulsory labour. In North-America this system failed. Thus the Virginia Company, and the big landowners in Maryland and Carolina all had to give political and economic rights to the common colonists.

In Latin-America the Spanish also established a small elite, and called this system the encomienda. The resistance of the Indians was suppressed. Later the elite founded cities in order to facilitate exploitation (the reduciones). The compulsory labour was called mita. Such systems endured until the nineteenth century.

In this way North- and South-America have developed different social institutions. Obviously those in North-America are superior (inclusive). It is a slow and painful process to change institutions.


North American institutions are better because they forcibly stopped the development of similar institutions in Latin America?

Also, please note that the resistance of indigenous people in North America was also was suppressed. And it is still being suppressed.

I fulfilled the compulsory military service, and I take pride in it.

Once again, revolutions or foreign invasions are risky, and I disapprove of them. Often the new regime simply continues in the old way, although it naturally disposes of another basis of power. Sometimes the new regime is worse than the old one. Just look at the French revolution, or the Leninist coup d'état in Russia, or the fascist coup d'état in Italy and Germany, or use your own imagination. Revolutions may even create a total anarchy and disorder.


And when your country was in the midst of creating a democratic socialism, did you lay down your arms when the US instigated a coup or invaded? That is what we were discussing: the legitimacy of violence when opposing foreigners who are trying to take over the gov't.

By the way, there is this joke about Italian fascism: an Italian says: "Two men are needed to correct the mistakes of Mussolini". The other asks: "Two statesmen?" The reply: "No, two police officers". Or, the Pope prays that the eyes of Il Duce will be opened. The rest of Italy prays that he will finally close them. ;)

It is true that sometimes revolutions erupt in a spontaneous manner, and then the leaders can seize the opportunity to extort beneficial changes, often also participation. At the same time, the leaders must make it a primary concern to tone down the aggression. It will help, when the new rule includes the acceptable parts of the old regime.

Finally, note that democratic socialism requires lots of coordination, and this depends heavily on the experience of the people with decent institutions. When socialism does not work in the west, it will be disastrous elsewhere.


I am not certain that you know a lot about socialism. Or about the history of democratic socialism.
#14741927
@ Pants-of-dog
Pants-of-dog wrote:I will assume that you concede the point..

You are perfectly free to decide what you want to assume. I have merely presented some facts and reflections, which you may want to consider.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is probably due to the legacy of US intervention in Latin America, where they would prop up a right wing dictator whose job it was to extract as much wealth as possible and send it to the US.

According to "Why nations fail" the cause is the historic development, notably the Spanish intervention, which starts in the seventeenth century. Incidentally, this book meets with some approval on PoFo, which is a positive sign, since PoFo members are notorious for their implacability.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not certain that you know a lot about socialism. Or about the history of democratic socialism.

Socialism is manifold, since it always adapted to the local (national) institutions. I know some things about socialist practice, in some parts of the world. However, in all those examples of a socialist rule a number of common characteristics can be observed (strong social control, paternalism, fear of private enterprise, neglect of efficiency, bureaucracy, and probably some others), and I do not like these. They discourage personal initiative, hope and satisfaction, phenomena that make life worthwhile. In other words, I am pretty sure that socialism is not really compatible with human nature.
#14741966
TheRedBaron wrote:@ Pants-of-dog

You are perfectly free to decide what you want to assume. I have merely presented some facts and reflections, which you may want to consider.


To be honest, I feel like we are having two different conversations.

You are discussing the success of social democrats in Europe, while I am discussing the success (or lack thereof) of democratic socialists.

According to "Why nations fail" the cause is the historic development, notably the Spanish intervention, which starts in the seventeenth century. Incidentally, this book meets with some approval on PoFo, which is a positive sign, since PoFo members are notorious for their implacability.


Well, if the author thinks that is the only cause, then he or she is reducing a complex problem to one simple cuase, which is almost certainly incorrect.

Socialism is manifold, since it always adapted to the local (national) institutions. I know some things about socialist practice, in some parts of the world. However, in all those examples of a socialist rule a number of common characteristics can be observed (strong social control, paternalism, fear of private enterprise, neglect of efficiency, bureaucracy, and probably some others), and I do not like these. They discourage personal initiative, hope and satisfaction, phenomena that make life worthwhile. In other words, I am pretty sure that socialism is not really compatible with human nature.


Again, I am not certain you know that much about socialism. For example, you seem to not know anything about the Allende gov't.
#14743067
@ Pants-of-dog
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are discussing the success of social democrats in Europe, while I am discussing the success (or lack thereof) of democratic socialists.

Many people use a broad definition of democratic socialism. They identify it with a collective control over the private and public investments. For such a control allows to direct the growth of the economy and of the various branches. When politics decides about the investments, then this amounts to an economic democracy. Such a system can consist of central planning in combination with private property, or of an extensive Keynesian policy. Indeed such a system is not capitalism. Still I have my doubts about this broad definition, for it means that France under president De Gaulle was a socialist society.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, I am not certain you know that much about socialism. For example, you seem to not know anything about the Allende gov't.

Actually, there are two problems with regard to democratic socialism. There must be a successful transformation of the capitalist society into a socialist one. And the resulting socialist society must outperform capitalism. You are indeed right that the case of Chile under Allende is instructive with respect to the transformation phase. The existing resistance against the transformation must be mitigated, by the inclusion and appeasement of the opponents. Here the policy of Allende failed, and a careful analysis may be useful in order to reveal the pitfalls that must be avoided.

However, my interest lies in the second part of the problem, namely the performance of socialist policies. I have tried to find examples of socialism in practice. Some attempts resemble socialism (England under Attlee, France under Mitterrand, the Leninist states in Eastern Europe). Unfortunately the performances of the Mitterrand and Leninist systems were poor. And the British electorate deposed the Attlee government (I do not know yet why). So imho the problem of the transformation phase is no longer relevant, since the final goal (socialism) is undesirable.
#14743143
TheRedBaron wrote:@ Pants-of-dog

Many people use a broad definition of democratic socialism. They identify it with a collective control over the private and public investments. For such a control allows to direct the growth of the economy and of the various branches. When politics decides about the investments, then this amounts to an economic democracy. Such a system can consist of central planning in combination with private property, or of an extensive Keynesian policy. Indeed such a system is not capitalism. Still I have my doubts about this broad definition, for it means that France under president De Gaulle was a socialist society.


I may be mistaken, but according to Marx and most Marxists, that is social democracy and not socialism.

Actually, there are two problems with regard to democratic socialism. There must be a successful transformation of the capitalist society into a socialist one. And the resulting socialist society must outperform capitalism. You are indeed right that the case of Chile under Allende is instructive with respect to the transformation phase. The existing resistance against the transformation must be mitigated, by the inclusion and appeasement of the opponents. Here the policy of Allende failed, and a careful analysis may be useful in order to reveal the pitfalls that must be avoided.


Yes.

And as I said, the main opposition came in the form of a foreign capitalist superpower that unilaterally meddled in Chilean politics.

However, my interest lies in the second part of the problem, namely the performance of socialist policies. I have tried to find examples of socialism in practice. Some attempts resemble socialism (England under Attlee, France under Mitterrand, the Leninist states in Eastern Europe). Unfortunately the performances of the Mitterrand and Leninist systems were poor. And the British electorate deposed the Attlee government (I do not know yet why). So imho the problem of the transformation phase is no longer relevant, since the final goal (socialism) is undesirable.


Well, it seems that it is good enough that the Cuban people have fought to maintain it ever since 1959.
#14743824
@ Pants-of-dog
Pants-of-dog wrote:And as I said, the main opposition came in the form of a foreign capitalist superpower that unilaterally meddled in Chilean politics.

Here some important points that must be addressed ... You may apply them to Chile and the Allende government, but actually they are valid in a more general context. First, a democracy is a procedure, that is agreed upon more or less by consensus. All citizens and groups promise to respect the outcome of the elections. Nonetheless, the democracy can only function as long as the ruling majority takes into consideration the interests of the minority. Therefore an election victory is not a permit for the triumphing government to do anything she likes, even when her acts would be within the national law.

When the minority gets the feeling that the electoral winner abuses the authority, that he has gained, then she may doubt the legitimacy of that government. In extreme cases this will cause a coup-d'etat.

Second, sometimes a state (let us say, the USA) invests capital in a foreign state. In principle that capital is subject to the laws of that foreign state. However, when the foreign state applies his laws in an injust manner, or even replaces them by wrong substitutes, then evidently the investor (USA) will rebel. At least the investor must obtain a fair compensation. Unfortunately, sometimes this does not happen. And a global authority does not exist yet. So in times gone by it was fairly common that the army of the hurt state invaded the foreign state. Nowadays, this solution is accepted only in rare cases. However, the hurt state (USA) does have the right to use his leverage in order to enforce justice.

Third, already at the beginning of the twentieth century the European democratic socialists were aware of the above principles. They acknowledged that the private owners of the means of production must be compensated for their socialization. More then a decade ago, I read the booklet "Collectivisme" (1901), written by Emiel Vandervelde, a leading Belgian socialist. He simply proposes to tax the inheritances of capitalists. The tax yield can be used in various ways. The state can found his own enterprises and compete with the private industry. This idea was already proposed by Louis Blanc and by Lassalle. However, Vandervelde believes that the state-owned enterprises will lose the competition. The tax yield can also be used in order to buy shares (capital stock) from private enterprises, notably the most innovate ones. And finally the tax yield can be used for the acquisition of private monopolies. Vandervelde believes that this last option must get priority.

Perhaps this booklet is not a brilliant work. But it does illustrate that socialization must proceed in a gradual manner. In fact democracy gets priority over the establishment of a socialist society. In other words, it is crucial that justice is maintained during the transformation towards socialism. The interests of the capital owners must be respected, or the system will collapse. This is also the method, that was applied by Mitterrand, and perhaps by Attlee (I must definitely analyze English politics in 1945-51).
#14745951
@ TheRedBaron
TheRedBaron wrote:And finally the tax yield can be used for the acquisition of private monopolies. Vandervelde believes that this last option must get priority.

I am not convinced that state monopolies produce cheaper than private monopolies. For true monopolies are extremely rare, and therefore private suppliers must always fear the entrance of competitors. On the other hand, state monopolies tend to be bureaucratic and wasteful.
#14748063
Stegerwald wrote:I am not convinced that state monopolies produce cheaper than private monopolies.

It depends on the state. If it is a reasonably accountable democracy, state administration of natural monopolies like electric power, water and sewer service, railway tracks, etc. is reliably cheaper and better than private, for-profit administration. The rent seeking opportunities are just irresistible to private managers and unaccountable state apparatchiks.
For true monopolies are extremely rare,

Not really. All that's required is increasing economies of scale.
and therefore private suppliers must always fear the entrance of competitors. On the other hand, state monopolies tend to be bureaucratic and wasteful.

Where competition is possible, competing private providers will reliably outperform a state-run provider. But many fools just chant, "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" and advocate willy-nilly privatization of what are best left as public functions.

Israel won't comply because one of their explicit[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]