General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bad news for those wanting revolution. [View all]PETRUS
(3,678 posts)From the article you linked:
"This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions, regardless of the type of economic systems they had. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism."
Not to mention:
"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2008)
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (March 2008)
This article may contain original research. (February 2008)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2012)"
No doubt there are things to be learned from the experiences of these countries, but I think "socialism bad" is a pretty tendentious conclusion, especially since there is no consistent definition that pulls the list together.**
Maybe the real lessons include things like:
-Impoverished, pre-industrial, and politically disenfranchised populations are particularly susceptible to authoritarian demagoguery.
-Political violence frequently produces severe, unwanted, and unintended consequences.
-The world's power elites have the motive and the means to disrupt egalitarian people's movements.
I
-----
**Somebody upthread asked "what is pure socialism?" If we're going to debate the merits and faults of something, we need to agree on a definition. Here's what I use - Any system that grants formal decision making powers within a productive enterprise to labor is some kind of socialism. (Under capitalism, authority is based on ownership.) "Pure" socialism would vest all decision making power in the workers, and could also involve different property arrangements (co-ops, public companies, etc.).