# What conditions allow socialism to be effective? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681 "2011-12-18T22:30:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/21 "2011-12-19T13:29:46Z")
Sorry, too late to edit: It’d sort of be like seeing an American look askance at you eagerly snarfing Goat-milk cheese, and then saying, “Stupid American! He doesn’t understand that dill-weed goat cheese is the _REAL_ goat cheese.” No, the America understands just fine. It you who picks the cheese you like and pretends it’s the real or ‘authentic’ cheese. The worst you can say about the American is that he doesn’t much like goat cheese and shies away from trying kinds he’s unfamiliar with, and that he pays attention to the fact it all comes from the same dairy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/22 "2011-12-19T13:32:34Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Socialism is a system of public ownership and control over the means of productions including direct distribution towards the needs of the populace. > > To be frank, you’ve confused one segment of Socialism with the whole thing. The most notable feature of Dem-Soc is how very un-socialist it is. In perfect agreement, except for one nitpick: What you’re saying applies to progressivism or social democracy, as distinct from democratic socialism. But you are correct in that nowadays, most self-ID’d “socialist” parties operating in democratic systems seem to have no real goals any more beyond social democracy. “The theology of the final goal” has been largely forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/23 "2011-12-19T13:44:01Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > First off, the US has more history on its side than the rest of the world; it’s you who diverged, not us. So, the US are in the minority in their definition of socialism (and note how the way you define it there means there is zero difference with communism. Makes it all the more easy to throw both away and label them as unworking or improper for development, when a large part of the Western world has developed using socialist policies). History moves on and can change and alter the meanings of words, apparently you got stuck in the XIXth century, and didnt bother to check out how the world outside of the US operates. Considering your posting history, I cant say that I am that surprised. Anyway, you are aware (and so was John Mace) that socialism outside of the United States means progressive. So why not use that definition and move on? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/24 "2011-12-19T14:04:27Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Anyway, you are aware (and so was John Mace) that socialism outside of the United States means progressive. So why not use that definition and move on? I don’t know which part of the rest of the world you’re from(I’m guessing Europe?), but please speak for it, not for everyone. I’m from India, and since we only ended a disastrous 30 year flirtation with socialism in the fag end of the XXth century, and there’s plenty of the rest of the world that still consider socialism to be ‘public ownership of production and distribution of goods to the populace’, why not use the definition that terms actually have instead of trying to guess at what history has moved it on to and for whom? ---
**Author:** ![\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/eada6e/32.png) [@\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Undecided_Adrian)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/25 "2011-12-19T14:30:34Z")
The thing is, as **Rune** noted in the first reply, that the OP talks about Social Democracies such as Sweden instead of actual Socialism/Communism such as the former Eastern Bloc. The thread would be clearer if everybody used the European definitions, which are much less ambiguous. That said, trust in your government and your society is the necessary condition. Homogeneity plays a role, but it’s not the determining factor. I think Canada is quite diverse and still implements many features of Social Democracy, for example. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/26 "2011-12-19T14:36:52Z")
> [@Brainglutton](#): > > In perfect agreement, except for one nitpick: What you’re saying applies to progressivism or social democracy, as distinct from democratic socialism. But you are correct in that nowadays, most self-ID’d “socialist” parties operating in democratic systems seem to have no real goals any more beyond social democracy. “The theology of the final goal” has been largely forgotten. Well (and I’m trying to be polite here) but the reason it went away is precisely because it _was_ a theology. Ultimately, the truly revolutionary parties failed (why that is being outside the scope of this thread) and they faded into a mild senescence. Thus, I don’t really try to distinguish Democratic-Socialism and Social Democrats. There wasn’t that much diffrence from the beginning, and they tended to merge over time. In short, I’m just saying I’m not trying to fight some abstract battle of what’s “real” socialism. If Capitaine Zombie wants to claim he’s a Socialist, I’m all for that. But when he tries to add, “And only I and those like me are proper Socialists” I start laughing. > [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > So, the US are in the minority in their definition of socialism (and note how the way you define it there means there is zero difference with communism. Makes it all the more easy to throw both away and label them as unworking or improper for development, when a large part of the Western world has developed using socialist policies). Since you’re so certain, I’m sure you can provide a cite. Note, too, that Socialism is _supposed_ to include Communism, which is, or was intended to be, a means of developing the circumstances which would get you there. Communism grew out of the practical issues of applying Socialism. Whether you like it or not is beside the point, and trying to disavow it, however noble, isn’t intellectually honest or reasonable. Marz, and for that matter Lenin, were great theorists of the Socialist movement and accepted as such in their time and after. Communism is one branch of Socialism, and no more or less “valid” than Anarchism or Democratic Socialism. > [@](#): > > History moves on and can change and alter the meanings of words, apparently you got stuck in the XIXth century, and didnt bother to check out how the world outside of the US operates. Considering your posting history, I cant say that I am that surprised. Nonresponsive; ad-hominem; and self-referential. I use the word as it was originally, and still is, used in a variety of contexts and movements, and to indicate an entire system fo theoretical thought. You seem to use it to mean whatyever your pet political cause is, even if it has nothing to do with Socialism. Then you claim universalism, which you are most definitely not. > [@](#): > > Anyway, you are aware (and so was John Mace) that socialism outside of the United States means progressive. So why not use that definition and move on? For one thing, it _doesn’t_ mean that. However, do go on. I love being lectured on my narrowmindedness by someone acting so charmingly narrowminded. It’s simple: I’m using an academic, but still highly accurate definition, which would probably be considered quite acceptable in any neutral discussion. You want it to refer to your own views, and call me names for laughing at you. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/27 "2011-12-19T14:37:09Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Now to drop the word “Socialism” and ask, “Why do the Scandinavian countries seem to be able to go on successfully with 80% tax rates, unemployment plans that let you sit around playing video games till the day you die just because you want to, and so on?” > > Well… > > A) It’s possible that they aren’t. The US instituted Social Security something like 50 or 60 years ago. The government isn’t scheduled to go bankrupt due to Social Security for another 20-30 years even still. If you look at us just today, by all means we’re a success. In reality though, not so much. Some things just take time to fail. > > B) It’s possible that the sort of people who would rather sit around playing video games all day, if made to work for a living, just end up getting in every one else’s way and actually impede work. You’re just as well to pay them to stay home. > > C) It’s possible that the politicians are lying and have a gradually rising problem of unemployment growing under their feet, as workers realize they don’t have to work. > > D) It’s possible that sitting on top of a large source of the world’s oil supply means that they can basically do whatever they want and be happy all the way till the oil runs out, and then they’ll have to start getting serious about life again. > > E) It’s possible that giving access to higher education to anyone who is interested, is key to a meritocratic society and for the best in the long run. > > F) It’s possible that their policies of free love and kindness has brought in an amazing rate of immigrants to loot the country and take it back to Albania, the Middle Eat, and elsewhere, such that the yearly crime rate since 1985 perfectly matches the immigration rate and has lead to a growing level of racism in those countries. > > G) It’s possible that even with 80% tax rates, since it is not a set of Communist countries, and they are in fact a meritocratic countries, there is still personal wealth and some people are very rich and own big yachts and fancy Swedish sports cars, and others are poor and live in small one-room apartments. But each is getting what he was willing and able to work for, or at least close enough to not really make much of a difference. Or even … H) The tax rate isn’t anywhere close to 80%, meaning that the taxation system isn’t that far removed from other Western countries and such unemployment plans don’t exist. The Swedish reality: Basic income tax is around 30% (it changes slightly depending on where you live). It goes up to around 50% if you earn more than about 30,000 SEK/month. VAT is 25% on some goods, 12% on some others and 6% on a select few things. Unemployment plans are possibly better than other Western countries, but a lot of the reputation comes from A-Kassa, a service people usually pay for via their union (although it is available without a union). Think of it as unemployment insurance. Even then, it last 300 days and is capped at a rather low limit. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/28 "2011-12-19T15:26:21Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I think, and have always thought, this to be the case, but it seems like people call you an eevil racist whenever you say it. “What, so you have to be a white Aryan to make socialism work?” No. I think the same thing is true of Japan, because of the totally homogenous population. I don’t really know what kind of economic system Japan has, or how it is affected by the government, but I assume it incorporates some elements of socialism. It’s worth noting that 15% of Sweden’s population is foreign born. Granted many of them are from neighbouring countries with similar cultures, however plenty aren’t and this figure doesn’t include their children born in Sweden. I think a lot of North American commentators on Europe don’t realise how diverse many European countries are nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/29 "2011-12-19T15:43:36Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > It’s worth noting that 15% of Sweden’s population is foreign born. Granted many of them are from neighbouring countries with similar cultures, however plenty aren’t and this figure doesn’t include their children born in Sweden. I think a lot of North American commentators on Europe don’t realise how diverse many European countries are nowadays. True, but I’ve heard (this is secondhand, and often personal, reports) that the same new diversity has put much pressure on the state, and led to a slow decline of the very programs under discussion. I definitely don’t claim to be familiar enough with the Nordic countries to know for myself. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/30 "2011-12-19T15:46:50Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > It’s worth noting that 15% of Sweden’s population is foreign born. Granted many of them are from neighbouring countries with similar cultures, however plenty aren’t and this figure doesn’t include their children born in Sweden. I think a lot of North American commentators on Europe don’t realise how diverse many European countries are nowadays. Nowadays, yes, but not when the present system was set up. Anyway, if everyone gets to use their own definition of “socialism”, we’re not going to have a very productive debate. There is a continuum in the “mixed economy” systems in place in the US and Sweden, and I wouldn’t say that there is a fundamental difference between the two. Sweden has more social services than the US, but it’s just a matter of degree. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/31 "2011-12-19T15:53:13Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > True, but I’ve heard (this is secondhand, and often personal, reports) that the same new diversity has put much pressure on the state, and led to a slow decline of the very programs under discussion. I definitely don’t claim to be familiar enough with the Nordic countries to know for myself. That could well be true, I don’t know enough about it either. I was just pointing out that Sweden isn’t 100% ethnically Swede by a long shot. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/32 "2011-12-19T16:21:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, the Soviet Union ran under a communist system. In communism, the economy is completely controlled by the government. There’s no private property, you’re assigned to a job, there’s supposed to be no money, etc. No. Communism was the (supposed) goal, where the state would “wither away”. That never happened. They stayed in the socialist model. > [@](#): > > In socialism, there’s still private property and businesses and jobs and money and things like that. The difference is that major businesses are owned by the government instead of private citizens. An example of socialism would be something like the post office or the BBC or El Al airline (although not any longer; the government of Israel privatized El Al in 2004). The idea is that the company will be run for the best interests of the people of the country (who, through the government, are its owners) rather than the best interests of the shareholders. > > I’ll grant you that some people use the word socialism to mean all kinds of things from “let’s smash the state” to “let’s kill all the Jews”. But we should stick with the main meaning of the word. Otherwise, we can argue that North Korea is an example of how a democracy works. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/33 "2011-12-19T17:37:11Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > **What conditions allow socialism to be effective?** If “effective” means “thriving economy” and if “socialism” means something more than “social democracy,” the only example I can think of is the [Spanish Revolution,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_revolution) which was really an anarcho-syndicalist system without centralized control or planning, and it was not allowed to last long enough to show whether it could thrive in the long run. And, I sometimes think Allende’s model of democratic socialism for Chile could have thrived, if he had managed to survive both the military coup and the next election, both unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/34 "2011-12-19T18:41:43Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Not to turn it into a discussion of terminology, but a better description would be Social Democratic. The Nordic countries function because they have relative small and very homogenous populations, which – together with some historic circumstances – have created a very high level of public trust. In many ways it’s more helpful to think of Nordic countries as tribes. In addition there’s the whole protestant working morals, and how some people see the welfare state as an earthly implementation of Nordic Christianity. > > In any case, the current level of immigration and globalisation has put the systems under heavy pressure, it is already being downscaled and it is doubtful the welfare state will survive the current generation. I had a college history professor that was both a socialist and a Quaker. He claimed there were many examples of successful socialist societies, but they all had a strong Christian component. His proof were some of the 19’th century experiments in America. Any successful society must have a way to motivate workers. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/35 "2011-12-19T18:57:58Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > I had a college history professor that was both a socialist and a Quaker. He claimed there were many examples of successful socialist societies, but they all had a strong Christian component. His proof were some of the 19’th century experiments in America. That depends on what you mean by “successful.” The Oneida community managed to last for over a century… but previous to that, was nothing more than a sex-slave workshop for the benefit of cult leader John Humphrey Noyes. That said, they built quite quite a village even under Noyes and eventually became the Oneida flatware company (which did eventually go broke). Christian Communes did usually manage to get going, but they simply couldn’t compete with the outside world even for completely mundane, everyday pleasures - let alone anything socially-unacceptable to the Commune. The Shakers are pretty much the last of them. Non-Christian Communes completely crashed and burned. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/36 "2011-12-19T20:17:13Z")
The _kibbutz_ of Israel’s foundation “crashed and burned”, did they? They would be surprised to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/37 "2011-12-19T20:28:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The _kibbutz_ of Israel’s foundation “crashed and burned”, did they? They would be surprised to hear it. Didn’t they? At least, aren’t they considered awfully anachronistic in Israel today? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/38 "2011-12-19T20:29:27Z")
> [@](#): > > What conditions allow socialism to be effective? What’s required to make ‘socialism’ (a la what Europe and even the US has to a lesser degree) function? Ironically you need a strong and vibrant capitalist economy and base to make those ‘socialist’ type dreams a reality, painful as that must be to some posters on this board. (As others have said, the definition of what is or isn’t ‘socialism’ is certainly variable depending on who you ask, but what I THINK you mean is a social democracy, where you have basically some of the trappings of a socialist system riding on top of at least a quasi-capitalistic base, mixed with some sort of democracy or at least representative government in one form or another. Bake at 450 degrees for 20-30 years, or until a nice golden color, top with some rule of law and then let it set for a half an hour and you have some form of success or another. No modern successful country, afaik, actually uses a pure socialist system, since there you are talking about no private ownership and everything being state run. As appealing and desirable as that is to some folks it just doesn’t work very well in the real world, and even your most ‘socialistic’ European governments have backed off of that long ago, and have a more hybrid system…just like the US does) -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/39 "2011-12-19T22:13:44Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Or even … > > H) The tax rate isn’t anywhere close to 80%, meaning that the taxation system isn’t that far removed from other Western countries and such unemployment plans don’t exist. > > The Swedish reality: I didn’t say they exist, I said it’s a possibility. I’ve seen comments on either side, saying the opposite of one another. I haven’t personally read enough to comment any more particularly than stating it as one potential of many - exactly as I did. And while you say that 80% isn’t a realistic number, [according to the Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world), Sweden has up to a 59.05% tax on income, a separate 31.42% on payroll (I’m not sure what the difference is), and then something like a 15% average on purchases (i.e. on the remaining). That can easily get one into the 80% territory. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681/40 "2011-12-19T22:35:04Z")
There is one (often overlooked) example of a successful socialist society: The Inca Empire, where state officials and accountants collected and distributed all produce (and even arranged marriages, when they visited the villages and found any adult unmarried, don’t gimme no alternative-lifestyles shit). It worked in the sense that nobody in the Empire went hungry or naked, and the Emperor lived in luxury not much greater than the peasant. And they managed to build this centralized\* socialist multinational empire with purely stone-age technology, no system of writing (only the _quipu_ system of knotted cords, good for accounting but not for poetry), no wheeled vehicles, and no draft animal larger than a llama. Whether such a system could work in any post-neolithic society is another question. - Actually it was a federation of four provinces – the “Four Quarters” north, south, east and west of Cuzco – but a highly centralized system withal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-conditions-allow-socialism-to-be-effective/606681.md?page=3)