Hmm, this analysis was published in 1986. It predates the collapse of the USSR by 5 years, and of course the data used in the analysis is older than the publication date. Many of the nations listed as socialist economies were Soviet satellites (North Korea, Romania, Chekoslavokia, etc) and were being financially supported by the USSR. This was a big part of why the USSR collapsed - it was massively overextended. The centralized economy (which is how socialist countries are identified in this analysis) did not scale sustainably.
The USSR’s centralized economy did not scale enough to maintain their “security state” and fight off American imperialism.
For forever.
Well OK, but is it valid to consider the satellite states as functional centralized economies when they were financially dependent on the USSR? For instance, North Korea’s economy and quality of life immediately collapsed when the income from the USSR stopped.
Ultimately my point is that this comparison done 10 years later would look very different.
I think one of the criticisms of the USSR is that it economically looted the satellite states at least at first so I think we’d first need to firmly establish where wealth flowed over time before we talk about that.
I also have some problems calling N. Korea specifically both socialist and a Soviet satellite, neither of which is true imo but you could still say similar things about the actual satellites so I think the point remains.
These countries are countries where the working class actually control the means of production, right?
Because if they aren’t, they’re not all that socialist, are they?
This is not to distract from what these countries may have achieved… but calling them “socialist” when they very obviously aren’t socialist is misinformation.
The article blatantly says that they’re just defining socialism as “a centrally planned economy”. At that point, why not just use that term rather than shoehorning socialism onto it?
At that point, why not just use that term?
Because that is not what socialism is, ever has been or ever will be. No ifs, ands or buts.
I edited my comment to clarify, because my original wording was ambigious, thats exactly what I meant there, why not use the term central planning directly in the title rather than defining socialism in an arbitrary way?
why not use the term central planning directly in the title rather than defining socialism in an arbitrary way?
Maybe because even that wouldn’t say all that much - all economies are centrally planned at a national level - even the ones peddling “free market” mythology in an attempt to prove they aren’t. The US Military-Industrial Complex is no less a product of central planning than Cuba’s healthcare system is.
If socialist means centrally planned economy, and all countries are centrally planned, then all countries are socialist.
World revolution achieved! We did it, lemmy.
Edit: Jokes aside, I don’t quite get why you two are arguing. You seem to more or less agree that the study doesn’t actually discuss socialist countries.
We did it, lemmy.
Free headpats all around.
I don’t quite get why you two are arguing.
Because we’re leftists?
Because we’re leftists?
I guess that tracks.
If an economy is (centrally) planned, produces to satisfy needs rather than for profit, abolishes money as value form, then you get a socialist mode of production. Full economic planning is the biggest part of what socialism would be.
Of course that is what socialism is unless you go for Stalinist revision of the term, or bourgeois socialism (think Mussolini’s Italy but a bit more leftist) - in that case it’s meaning can be whatever one wants it to be
You can’t have a “socialist” mode of production and simply ignore the role of the working class in said mode of production.
If you are a fan of a party apparatus dictating the working class’ needs and wants for it then that’s your ideology… but don’t call it socialism.
I literally just paraphrased Marx’s definition of that mode of production as seen in Critique of Gotha Programme, where he critiqued Lassallean utopian socialists who didn’t know what they were fighting.
In this definition, socialist mode of production is when commodity production is abolished (which is the defining feature of capitalism) and replaced by producing for needs which is achieved via economic planning (since how else are you going to know how much to produce), value form is abolished meaning one cannot accumulate money/capital anymore, therefore ownership and class divisions it brings are also abolished since you can’t extract surplus value anymore. The economic planning would also act as a regulator for work hours, meaning instead of working a set 8 hours every day a worker would have to work as long as it is socially necessary to fulfill all the needs, which would almost always be much shorter if you consider capitalist overproduction, inefficiencies and so on.
This was a major goal of communists and even some socialist reformists worldwide that wasn’t historically achieved given how all of the revolutions happened in undeveloped countries (can’t produce for needs if there’s no factories to produce them) and failed to achieve internationalism (it’s necessary, both for globalized cooperation for trade to build socialism and for defense against capitalist influences and aggression). Of course, after Stalin came along and shit all over this definition with his “socialism in one state” concept where the country started focusing on national interests in a way that wasn’t different from capitalist states, that’s when waters became muddied.
If you think this definition is invalid, what do you think socialism is then and how does it differ from capitalism?
socialist mode of production is when commodity production is abolished
It’s a useless “definition.” Commodity production doesn’t have to be abolished for a mode of production to be called socialist. If that was true, no socialist experiment anywhere, at any time could be called socialist.
The abolition of commodity production might be an inevitable result of a socialist mode of production, but that hardly tells us anything about who it is that’s doing the production and the who it is that is deciding what must be produced, does it? The who is important, don’t you think?
meaning instead of working a set 8 hours every day a worker would have to work as long as it is socially necessary to fulfill all the needs,
And who will be doing the enforcing of this?
Of course, after Stalin came along and shit all over this definition with his “socialism in one state”
Blaming it all on Stalin isn’t going to fly.
If you think this definition is invalid, what do you think socialism is then and how does it differ from capitalism?
What is wrong with an understanding (I avoid the term “definition” like the plague) of socialism that actually offers the working class something?
Yes but you’re not allowed to sell babies in a communist country, so why would you even want them to survive? Dumbass fucking commies.
