There are very few business regulations, particularly regarding workers; in fact, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries do not have minimum wages for their workers. One area where Sweden does have socialist policies is in its school system. In the United States , the government pays for public schools, and parents who prefer can pay to send their children to private schools instead. Sweden offers school vouchers to all children, meaning that the government will pay for school wherever the parents decide to send the children.
The children can go to schools run by religious institutions or those run by the government. Swedish workers do pay more in taxes than workers in non-socialist countries, like the United States. The reason they do so is so that the government has money for generous social services, including maternity and paternity leave for new parents and the school voucher system.
There is also more income equality in Scandinavian countries, like Sweden, than in the United States, because of how the government redistributes wealth. Perhaps the lesson from Sweden is that both socialism and capitalism can co-exist in such a way that children have equal access to education, no matter their income, while workers can enjoy rights that are inferred to them by the company rather than the government. Is Finland socialist? The answer really depends on how you define socialism.
Finland, like other Scandinavian countries, has a comprehensive social safety net that helps ensure that people have what they need to live productive, healthy, and happy lives. If your definition of socialism is individuals and businesses paying high taxes to ensure that wealth is being distributed equitably across the population, then yes, Finland is socialist. However, Finland runs on a free-market economy, something that is contrary to how many people perceive socialism.
If your definition of socialism is heavy government regulation of business, then no, Finland is not socialist. In fact, government regulations are so low that Finland does not even have a minimum wage. Those benefits include free schools, including college, for all students and generous maternity and paternity leave for new parents.
This model may seem like something that other countries should replicate. The challenge is applying that model in countries that are less homogenous and have a significantly higher population than Finland, like the United States. However, other countries may benefit from applying aspects of their economic and political system.
Many people equate socialism with communism but doing so is a mistake. Communism describes a complete economic and political system in which the state owns all property and means of production; markets have no power to regulate prices or determine what should be produced. Socialism describes an economic system in which taxes are generally high so that the government can provide a broad social safety net for services such as education, healthcare, and public pensions.
A country can be both capitalist and socialist, as capitalism refers to free markets that, unlike in communism, can determine prices and modes of production. Those who have capital, or a sufficient level of wealth, can begin businesses that employ people and provide a good or service that the market demands.
Switzerland is a prime example of a capitalist country that has some socialist policies. The education model in Switzerland is also very friendly to businesses, as students are required to gain job training as part of their academic education.
Healthcare in Switzerland can be understood as somewhat socialist. A public insurer cannot turn anyone down for any reason, including a pre-existing condition.
However, the insured individual, rather than the employer or the government, is required to pay the premiums. Education in Switzerland is free, and students who pursue an academic route, rather than a vocational one, are given free admission to universities. Generally, Switzerland is too decentralized to be genuinely socialist. Much of the government authority is relegated to the various cantons; while a particular canton can have more socialist policies than another one, the country as a whole is capitalist with some socialist elements.
Denmark is generally considered to be a Scandinavian country, and the Scandinavian countries — which also include Finland, Norway , and Sweden — are renowned for their socialist policies and overall high rates of happiness and well-being. That said, Denmark has a free-market economy with generous socialist elements, making it a blend of capitalist and socialist.
The government uses this income to create a wide array of social programs, including healthcare, education, and job training. Because there are so many social programs to support people, businesses are more willing to engage in risks that can improve their productivity. The Danish economy is thereby able to encourage companies and individuals because they know that one risky venture will not lead to catastrophe. Like other Scandinavian countries, the Danish government has very few regulations on businesses.
Instead, its policies are more focused on social programs. As such, there are very few regulations on hiring and firing, and there is no minimum wage. As a result, Denmark has a very high rating in terms of its free-market index. Denmark is probably more capitalist than the United States because its government encourages businesses to run solely on market principles rather than government policies. Additionally, it has better rates of healthcare, education, and social security than many other capitalist countries because the high tax rates create a redistribution of wealth in the form of social programs.
France is a country with a socialist party that has long had some level of power within its government. The tax revenue to GDP gross domestic product ratio is This high tax revenue that the government collects is spent on social programs, including unemployment benefits, government-sponsored paid maternity leave, healthcare, and education. However, France is also one of the most successful capitalist countries in the world. One might say that its socialist system provides a cushion to its capitalist mindset, thereby encouraging people to take more risks and providing a higher level of social cohesion.
France arguably is a socialist country, considering its high tax rates and extensive social programs. However, it is not communist, as the state does not attempt to control the means of production.
Instead, those forces are left to markets, which are remarkably good at regulating themselves. However, some of the largest industries in France have nationalized, meaning that the government owns the largest share in them. This concept makes hiring workers risky, as they may ultimately cost the company money, but the company may be unable to get rid of them.
They likewise betray an underestimation of the role and significance of our Socialist state and of its military, punitive and intelligence organs, which are essential for the defence of the Socialist land from foreign attack. It must be confessed that the comrades mentioned are not the only ones to sin in this underestimation. All the Bolsheviks, all of us without exception, sin to a certain extent in this respect. Well… As you can see here, Stalin was all too aware of this.
His problem is therefore that, as capitalism internationally is too powerful, to begin the transition into communism would be suicide as it would relinquish too much power to adequately defend itself. Given this speech was given in , history seems to have proved him right, with the biggest war in history right on his doorstep and over fifty subsequent years of Cold War. That was impossible and Stalin was aware of this. Socialist nations can exist individually, but the process towards communism must be on the global scale.
One might argue that the formation of the Eastern Bloc and the adding of other socialist countries was thus a step in the right direction. Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. What are socialist nations, or socialist countries? First of all, we need to lay some ground rules!
Socialist countries are thin on the ground, so we need to understand this well. If we want to know which nations are socialist, we need to understand socialism in more detail. There are plenty of countries that claim to be communist or socialist. Many more what countries have been communist. But what are socialist countries exactly?
Secondly socialist countries must limit private property. Private property is distinct from personal property, I should note. Private property exists for the purpose of generating profit from its use for exchange. Meanwhile, personal property exists only for personal use. Under communism, all private property disappears, while socialism is the stage whereby this private property greatly diminishes. Particularly from the bourgeoisie major capitalists mainly through the collectivization of major industry and agriculture.
Marxism often differs on whether limited enterprise among individuals or collectives, without capitalist property owners, continues in socialist systems. Thirdly, production must primarily be for use, not exchange, essentially an end to commodity production. The private property remains, held largely by state organs but using this to generate profit for its own sake.
Capitalists input money and generate a commodity which they sell for profit, which begins a cycle. They then generate money from this transaction and use this to buy a commodity for their own personal use. Socialism would limit the need for money, end M-C-M production and aim towards communism. A whole different topic for a whole different day. Start with the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, which is like dipping your toe in the proverbial water. From there, dissuade a few myths with the short Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Maybe explore a bit with State and Revolution by Lenin afterwards. Which nations are socialist? Are there any socialist nations today at all!? Here we list current communist countries, or more specifically current socialist countries on the road to being a communist country. So what is the DPRK exactly? Juche is variously described as Socialism with Korean characteristics, Confucian socialism and a few other names by foreign observers.
The base, however, remains dominant. This is the logic that socialist nations that worked need to have strong heavy industry to be successful. Their material conditions were theoretically not good enough for socialism anymore. Juche and to a degree some other ideologies like Maoism would assert that the superstructure can override the base when creating socialist countries.
This was to unify the country and ensure the socialist project continued. Albeit with some market compromises to try and prevent hardship during the arduous march.
Not too dissimilar to say the NEP, which was used the early days of the Soviet Union being for the first of many socialist countries. This was followed with Songun policy, attempting to advance the Marxist ideal that the proletariat was the most revolutionary class.
Instead, the military was seen the most unified and ideologically capable element of the working class. Them being the most fit to carry the revolution forward. This was a way of leaning on the superstructure to circumvent the damage of the base, so to speak. The unity of the military was then used to develop industry and repair the base!
This is the theory anyways. But how does Korea line up with our three rules? Well, the Workers Party of Korea is unquestionably a vanguard party.
It is the sole party, it focuses on ideological education and there is at least, seemingly, democratic centralism. Property is massively controlled by the state or in collectives. This makes it unlikely that there are actual capitalists in the traditional sense. Outside of Rason Special Economic Zone , which is part of where the lines become blurred. Lastly, what is their production? Trade with foreign countries is quite limited and is often more in the form of raw materials. As well as trading commodities for commodities, which can be considered for use.
Currency within the country is non-transferable on the international market. It mostly exists to facilitate an internal flow of goods into the right hands. So not exactly generating massive profits for any capitalist. Production could be said to be, predominantly, for use and not for exchange, though not exclusively So that sums it all up nicely!
This has some parallels with Titoism in Yugoslavia, where they aimed to build a communist state without aid from the Socialist Bloc.
When it comes to current socialist countries, therefore the DPRK could well be seen as our benchmark. Cuba is the other major one everyone tends to think of, being one of the most well known socialist countries. Having become already rather self-sufficient due to necessity, being so isolated from other socialist states and being embargoed by the US already, there was no need for a significant ideological change to justify the maintaining of socialism.
Hardship ensued, but the country endured no major famine or other urgent need to begin reforms. Cuba maintains the old line of Marxism-Leninism, with its own particular Cuban flair of course. Albeit with government leaning on the superstructure to keep things in line.
How does Cuba fare in our model? Well, the Communist Party of Cuba is absolutely a vanguard party. Private property has returned, but only to a limited degree, which is another area where the lines are getting close. Meanwhile, a degree of private development from foreign countries also exists to help boost the tourist sector. Despite this, outright capitalists in Cuba are largely nonexistent. The petty bourgeoisie maintains a presence, but the main bourgeoisie are marginal. Lastly, we have the question of production.
Cuba trades extensively with other countries and people do produce certain commodities on an individual scale to generate a profit. On the whole, the means of production run by the state sector is still active for use, not commodities.
Money in Cuba primarily exists only to circulate internally, much like Korea. Overall, Cuba maintains a primarily socialist economy, though some may say that it skirts the line on this matter. So again whilst people refer to Cuba as a communist country, they refer to themselves as a socialist country working towards communism. Interestingly Cuba toyed with the idea of removing Marxism-Leninism from the new constitution, but in the end voted against its removal.
Although with the recent change in the allow which allows much more private enterprise some have questioned where Cuba now falls within the bloc of socialist countries. This is one that causes heated debate when it comes to communit countries and indeed socialist countries. Okay, so what the hell does this mean then? Given what we know of socialism and socialist countries, how can we tell which nations are socialist when these flagrantly break the rules?
In a lot of contexts, they mean the same thing depending on who you talk to. Now, even socialist countries DPRK and Cuba have accepted this to some extent through limited private enterprise.
As for other socialist countries, well not so much so. When the dominant mode of production is market-based, the system is still filtering into capitalist logic.
Markets function off of competition and production for profit rather than for use. Therefore purest would see them not as socialist countries. This of course can be necessary for socialist countries at times, particularly to boost trade with other countries and get more materials. This however did not lead to a return of the capitalist class or an intended reduction in the socialist mode of production.
Which of these are socialist countries? Is the PRC one of the socialist countries going by our metric? China, as led by Mao Zedong unquestionably according to our metric counted among socialist governments and socialist countries for a very long period. This theory is variously regarded as a progressive development in accordance with Chinese material conditions or a perverse rightist deviation from Marxism-Leninism as an attempt to return to capitalism under the cloak of socialism… Socialists have a flair for the dramatic, you may find.
China emerged out of semi-feudalism to advance towards socialism, largely skipping an intermediate capitalist stage which is something Marx considered inadvisable. Under our model, we can see where this places China. They absolutely have a vanguard party, the structure of the CPC is largely unchanged from the early socialist days. Private property however is quite a major stumbling block.
Much of the property in China is in private hands , as well as being owned by foreign companies and used for the purpose of commodity production. As for the nature of production in China, profit is absolutely the goal. By this metric, China does not qualify as a socialist state in full.
So again, whilst people like to call China a communist country usually in a disparaging light , the PRC does not claim to be communist yet. When China will finally be ready for communism evokes differing opinions among the Chinese! We have thrown these two socialist countries toegther because they fall under the same kind of banner really. Collectivization was gradually disbanded and capitalists set up shop within their borders. Albeit with heavy state interference and the guiding hand of a vanguard party ever-present.
Both countries maintain their vanguard parties. They are the sole leading parties of their respective socialist nations and they hold considerable sway. Meanwhile capitalist enterprise operates heavily within their borders and production for exchange is the dominant mode, under the ideal of developing productive forces. This maintained the vanguard structure while still retaining economic reform. In most respects, the economic structures of these economies is more closely comparable to China.
Laos has a lower industrial level but still allows heavy privatization and works with China in developing its economic model. Vietnam is much the same, with a stronger industrial core to back it up. Whether they return to socialism and continue Marxist-Leninist ideals is up for debate outside the scope of this blog post. These are nations with socialist parties perhaps, but not states with existing socialism.
A revisionist country still adheres to Marxist-Leninism in ways outside of the economy. The understanding that socialism is a revolutionary movement and that socialist governments can only be formed by a revolutionary movement remains. Reformist countries are not like that. The trick is right there in the name, reformist! The belief that one can reform from a capitalist mode of production to a socialist one. Many question the legitimacy of such things, believing that while a vanguard party in China for instance could theoretically return to the socialist path, a reformist state cannot do such a thing.
By their very nature, the contradictions between a capitalist country and a socialist movement are too great to be resolved democratically, hence the often militant collapse of such reformist attempts. Still, some remain! And while they may lack socialism in practice, some argue that it remains in spirit. Which countries are socialist? Obviously we have given quite the in-depth answer to this question! These communist countries all mutually recognize each other, and have good relations at least from a party to party level.
The days of the Warsaw Pact are very much over. But what about other so-called socialist countries? Are there other socialist states in various forms? Where does Venezuela fit into the group of socialist countries? Is Venezuela communist as is often portrayed? They are often the posterchild of socialist countries and their failure from the American camp, a way of showing alleged poverty it brings. Venezuela does not have a vanguard party, which should be made clear. Even if this is true, it does not meet the criteria of a true vanguard party and has a legitimate opposition movement within the country.
This is strike one. Property in Venezuela is quite a mixture. On the other hand, there is a massive amount of private property in Venezuela as well, with a wealthy capitalist class that controls a great deal of production and distribution. Socialist market economies generally discourage private ownership. In addition, in socialist market economies, goods and services are produced for their usefulness, with the aim to eliminate the need for a demand-based market.
In this way, it discourages accumulation, which is assumed to be the root cause of wealth imbalance. Interestingly, no pure socialist, pure capitalist, or pure communist economy exists in the world today.
Cuba has a mostly state-run economy including a national healthcare program, government-sponsored education free for its citizens at all levels, subsidized housing, utilities, entertainment, and even subsidized food programs. Together, these social programs are meant to compensate for the low salaries of Cuban workers, making them better off than their international counterparts in many other countries.
The reason is that Cuba's economy was in disarray. GDP was registered at 2. In addition, the country has experienced shortages of consumer staples, energy rationing, and price inflation. As of today, Cuba operates with a parallel financial system; one that operates on the usual social programs in critical sectors while allowing a free-market economy in the tourism, export, and international business sectors. The country has continued to introduce reforms through new laws aimed at bringing in higher foreign investment , which was a shift from being a complement of the economy to an essential part of it.
A significant portion of the Chinese economy is still government-controlled, although the number of government programs has declined significantly. How has China managed to grow its economic influence? Policies allow entrepreneurs and investors to take profits but within the controls of the state. North Korea—the world's most totalitarian state—is another prominent example of a socialist economy. Like Cuba, North Korea has an almost entirely state-controlled economy, with similar social programs to those of Cuba.
There is no stock exchange in North Korea either. Around mid, North Korea was better educated and more productive than China based on international trade per capita. However, the economic and social situation has been precarious in North Korea since a massive famine hit the country between and Today, many world powers have discontinued aid and trade with North Korea due to the many human rights abuse allegations of the totalitarian government.
These sanctions by other world powers have significantly restricted any economic development of the North Korean economy.
Apart from the challenges of dynastic rule in North Korea, which prevents the country from becoming self-reliant, the campaign of "military-first politics" also imposes a heavy burden on the economy.
This has completely closed off North Korea on nearly all fronts. In May of , the United Nations estimated that 10 million North Koreans were facing severe food shortages. Due to a lack of self-sufficient manufacturing facilities and markets in the country and increasing dependency on China, private firms and businesses are on the rise in North Korea. Lack of credible official information on North Korea makes it hard to observe the economic development or lack thereof , but available information does point to the existence of a different financial system.
Socialist market economies across the globe have existed and continue to progress. However, there may not be any standard of a pure socialist economy remaining. Over time, many world leaders that previously identified under the umbrella of socialist economies have now bent towards capitalist-shifts in programs and policies; China being the leader among them.
The ones taking a rigid stand are facing severe problems or developing parallel markets. Medill Reports Chicago. The Brookings Institution. Accessed Feb. The Commonwealth Fund. World Economic Forum. The World Bank. Library of Congress.
United States Institute of Peace.
0コメント