Name One Successful Socialist Nation?

[anotheoldgit]

Apparently Labour's Emily Thornberry couldn't on last night's Question Time.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/880633/BBC-Question-Time-Labour-Party-Socialism-Emily-Thornberry-Jeremy-Corbyn-Venezuela

[mushroom25]

Venezuela IS successful, apparently. they're only in the mire because of Donald Trump's unbelievably harsh foreign policy with regard to sanctions.
(allegedly).

[dannyk13]

And this of course:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-36319877

[mushroom25]

ah but Danny, who said successful socialism needed to be democratic?

[dannyk13]

Good point.:-)

[ToraToraTora]

sweden the very pantheon of human achievement....hang on!

[Bazile]

^^^^
They produced ABBA , didn't they ?

[cassa333]

I watched it last night.

Why can't she, or any politician for that matter, just answer the question straight off without having to give some bull crap explanation that means they aren't answering the question or without ignoring the question and answering one that hasn't been asked?

[ToraToraTora]

don't be to harsh, AOG, no proponent of socialism has ever explained how it could ever possibly work, yet we have many, on here who continually claim it can but they mean their implementation of it. I.E for all the others not me!

[Khandro]

It depends who you are really, it was quite good for the likes of Mr and Mrs Nicolae Ceaușescu, they had a nice palace and everthing and then the spoilsports came along and made a mess of it.

[Kromovaracun]

What do we mean by "socialism" here?

Marxist-Leninsim, with abolition of private property and a planned economy in which everything is state-run?
Social democracy, with regulated market economies and a well-funded social safety net?
Democratic socialism, with nationalised (but not planned) industrial strategy?
Anarcho-Socialism, with the abolition of a government entirely and a society based on mutual dependence?
Utopian socialism (also called Owenism), where enterprises in a market economy are run co-operatively?

etc etc

Socialism isn't one idea, it's an umbrella term for a bunch of different philosophies which have common origins in the critique (with varying degrees of severity) of capitalism. So the question is somewhat meaningless.

[DTCwordfan]

Japan - liberal-socialist for most of the time since the "2nd WW" and only recent has there been a surge of conservatism with the downfall of the LDP and now wanting to being back the pre-war Constitution in many areas.

[jim360]

I don't think it's possible to find an example where pure, unadulterated socialism has "worked". I don't think there ever will be, either. But one can still find reasonable, individual socialist polices "working" rather well. The welfare state is a pretty socialist idea, for example, and we're long past the time where anyone is seriously going to argue against doing away with it - in its entirety, at least.

Maybe Socialism tends to fail because it sets impossible standards for success, and more fundamentally it's not in enough people's nature to be altruistic and selfless in the way that Socialism requires. But then again, Capitalism doesn't exactly "work" for most people either. But then since it doesn't purport to, people apparently tend to forgive its failures while lambasting socialism, or anything that even remotely resembles it.

[Kromovaracun]

// I don't think it's possible to find an example where pure, unadulterated socialism has "worked".//

Quite.

I doubt you will find an example of a functional or desirable country governed by pure, unadulterated capitalism either.

[jim360]

The original question does feel a little like it's from the 1066 and All That School of Historical and Economic Analysis: "Do you think the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a Good Thing?"; "Was it ever worth trying to become Top Nation?"; "Explain in not more than 10 words the root causes of the decline of Roman Imperial Hegemony", etc.

[Old_Geezer]

Socialism tends to flourish most where things are already not great and the masses are no longer prepared for an elite to live well while they struggle with the inequality of it all. So one might expect most "Socialist states" to not be shining. But they should be making progress for the people rather than the select few.

Unfortunately that also needs moral leaders who are not providing for their own at the expense of others. Which is why it is better to have a selection of socialist policies ensuring more equity in a country that still allows folk to do well for themselves, by allowing some reign to the human desire to gain, but within a legal/commercial structure that avoids excesses.

[sp1814]

AOG

There's not such thing as a purely socialist, or purely capitalist nation.

Every nation has elements of socialism and capitalism.

It's the way the world works.

For instance - the National Heath Service and our social security systems are socialist in execution and intent.

However, they can only exist within the framework of a capitalist system.

[naomi24]

//But one can still find reasonable, individual socialist polices "working" rather well.//

But only if you have reasonable socialist politicians - which currently we don't.

[Zacs-Master]

Socialism. Where everyone is equal. Except for those in power who are slightly more equal. And there’s the rub.

[naomi24]

^ Yep. Keep them poor, keep them needy.