Are their any real socialist countries that arent poor or Authoritarian?

[mathew101281]

Can someone give me an example of one?

[JackDaw]

Like so many questions it depends on definition of terms.

If you define “socialist” as communist and therefore making a profit is denied everybody but the state, then clearly things need to be authoritarian….how else can the human thirst for gain be controlled?

But if “socialist” is defined as having a strong emphasis on making sure as many citizens are looked after as possible, via paying high taxes and providing a good range of care services…then there are examples, such as the Scandinavian countries. (Eg. Denmark, Sweden, Finland).

[foxley]

If you mean the American definition of "socialist" being anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler, then probably them most western democracies.

But if you mean having things like nationalized healthcare, social welfare systems that work, workers' rights, etc. (which, according to American views, are the last stop before gulags) then still plenty. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Australia (although not as much as I would like)...

[Moon Ronin]

Like so many questions it depends on definition of terms.

If you define “socialist” as communist and therefore making a profit is denied everybody but the state, then clearly things need to be authoritarian….how else can the human thirst for gain be controlled?

But if “socialist” is defined as having a strong emphasis on making sure as many citizens are looked after as possible, via paying high taxes and providing a good range of care services…then there are examples, such as the Scandinavian countries. (Eg. Denmark, Sweden, Finland).

Socialist is were production and distribution is owned by the "people" as a whole and not individuals as in capitalism. The people of the Scandinavian country's will tell you will tell you that they are capitalist welfare states and not socialist countries, there is a reason that there economic system will not work in the US but that is a different subject. There really isn't a socialist country in the world today as it morphed into Democratic Socialism which is slow burn socialism.

[Kirby101]

Even China has a capitalist economy. So where are the pure, total State controlled countries?

The OP needs to tell him which countries he thinks are Socialist.

[Moon Ronin]

Even China has a capitalist economy. So where are the pure, total State controlled countries?

The OP needs to tell him which countries he thinks are Socialist.

Cuba. Though they have laxed on private propriety allowing people to own there own home and in some cased start very small business recently, it is still a predominantly centrally planned economy controlled by the state.


North Korea is also a state controlled country

[Kirby101]

Cuba. Though they have laxed on private propriety allowing people to own there own home and in some cased start very small business recently, it is still a predominantly centrally planned economy controlled by the state.


North Korea is also a state controlled country

Yes, I agree. N. Korea is obviously a horrible authoritarian state. With Cuba, it is a question if the populace was better off before or after Castro. And the American embargo also must be considered.

[Starter Set]

Socialist is a weird umbrella word who can mean very different things depending on who you ask, it's like the word "liberal", it can be understood very differently depending if you are talking to an European or an American. but to answer the thread topic most European countries have alternated between center/right and socialist/center left governments since 1945.

France, to take an example i know, socialists were in charge from 81 to 95 and then again later on with Holland. (not the country, i know, it's confusing but that's just the dude name)

Macron the current president of France was in the socialist party till he decided to fly solo. But i noticed that it tend to be rather difficult and tiring to talk to such things with American cause you have that weird tendency to mix capitalism with freedom, as if one couldn't exist without the other. That's quite an interesting subject, i suspect conditioning since childhood is the main reason here but that's fascinating.

[JackDaw]

Socialist is were production and distribution is owned by the "people" as a whole and not individuals as in capitalism. The people of the Scandinavian country's will tell you will tell you that they are capitalist welfare states and not socialist countries, there is a reason that there economic system will not work in the US but that is a different subject. There really isn't a socialist country in the world today as it morphed into Democratic Socialism which is slow burn socialism.

In 70’s Britain Coal, Gas, Electricity, Water, Post Office, National Health Service, Telecoms, Railways were owned by the state , while other industries were owned by their shareholders. It was a mixed economy, neither “pure” socialism or capitalism...

Then along came Mrs Thatcher. Whether or not she improved things (by among other things driving the economy towards more capitalism) divides opinion...but certainly 60s and early 70s UK was a reasonably pleasant place to live.

[wjowski]

If you're defining socialism as a purely government-controlled economy then none.

If you're defining socialism as having more than a basic, barebones social safety net for the country's unfortunate and impoverished then almost every developed nation in the world.

[inisideguy]

Can someone give me an example of one?

What do you mean by socialist?

[Zelena]

France, to take an example i know, socialists were in charge from 81 to 95 and then again later on with Holland. (not the country, i know, it's confusing but that's just the dude name)

True, in France, “socialist” is mostly a name of a political party, a particular sensitivity about social issues, a set of beliefs… Contrary to “communism” which favors “breaks”, “socialism” is about changing the society gradually towards a more harmonious society without giving up on capitalism.

But parties on the right have also social policies… It isn’t normally their trademark.

[4saken1]

Trying to define what a socialist country is is the wrong question to ask, I think. Conservatives always start by calling liberals and their platform 'Socialist'. Then liberals point to Canada and Scandinavian countries as being successful models of Socialism, to which conservatives respond that those countries are not Socialist. The whole exercise is moot. Why not just point out that the 'socialist' policies that Democrats are trying to enact already work in Scandinavian and other countries and work better than the systems we have in place here and that we already have several programs that are 'socialist' already in place, yet somehow we are still a free country.

[Kirby101]

I find it odd the OP does not want to discuss any of this.

[mathew101281]

I find it odd the OP does not want to discuss any of this.

I was referring to traditional socialist governments, a lot of European governments have socialist elements but are ultimately capitalist.