[whatshisface]

Examples of socialism working, where working is defined as performing stably and accomplishing at least some of its intended goals:

- Norwegian and Texan state resource wealth being used to fund the welfare state. (Texas only has welfare for the middle class via educational funding. When the state funds education, that's socialism, even if you like educational funding.)

- National healthcare systems in most wealthy places except for America. They could be better, but they could be worse too.

- Cuba, which is a poor country but is not experiencing the kind of total collapse that the decline and fall of the Soviet Union made us expect out of every socialist country.

[emteycz]

Cuba - given its position, climate, etc - should be absolutely thriving. What you're seeing there is a collapse, it has just reached its bottom (and there's no crazy politician who wants to build a huge ass rocket - yet).

[whatshisface]

The same argument could be applied to all of my examples, I think they all have people who argue that their current states are worse than they could be. That's why I defined "working" as "functioning" not "as good as it could be," or even "well-managed."

[bpt3]

What about Cuba gives you the impression it is functioning, unless your definition of functioning is anything above mass starvation and homelessness?

[whatshisface]

In a world with (and a history of) many countries full of mass starvation and homelessness, my definition of functioning is anything above mass starvation and homelessness.

[bpt3]

Fair enough, though that's an extremely low bar in the modern world.

[emteycz]

No, that's absolutely incomparable. Cuba is a shithole from hell comparable only to places such as North Korea, Bolivia or Venezuela (coincidentally also socialist states, huh), none of the other places are.

[kaba0]

Cuba - given it is not embargoed by one of the biggest economies of the world that is close to it as well.

[emteycz]

The rest of the world doesn't have such problem, I wonder why... Might have something to do with the crazy socialist politicians putting Soviet nukes there, perhaps?

[kaba0]

I didn’t say it wasn’t vindicated in doing so, but you ain’t measuring two programs relative performance by running one on a beefy machine and the other on an emulator either. Just don’t conclude more from it than you can.

[emteycz]

But this stuff doesn't really happen in free democracies, does it? We're comparing socialism to other systems and this is a feature of socialism (as proven by the other crazy socialist states, it's not just Cuba) - that makes it a part of the equation.

[narag]

I consider myself a libertarian with two exceptions: public education and healthcare as a fail-safe. Maybe a mixed system using vouchers would be even better, not sure. But from a practical perspective, I think they work better than the opposite options.

So we can more or less agree on these parts. But please, the Cuba example is nuts.

[whatshisface]

>But please, the Cuba example is nuts.

I think you're asking for a definition of functioning that is above what reality can offer. In Cuba, the government controls agriculture, and there isn't any mass starvation right now. That's a functioning system, at least - not every communist government can avoid mass starvation, and in fact most of them have periods of it.

[xenocratus]

Most of your examples are _not_ socialism, but social democracy. Please stop conflating those two terms.

[whatshisface]

Democratic socialism is a type of socialism. That is like saying, "Oaks are not trees, but deciduous trees."

[yucky]

I think socialism by definition forbids private ownership of capital. So countries that allow for private capital (which is most countries) are not socialist. North Korea does not allow private ownership of capital, so they certainly qualify as purely socialist. I believe Laos is similar. Same with Cuba.

China is interesting in that they used to be socialist, and have since transitioned in recent decades to a sort of state capitalism. There are still heavy restrictions on private capital in that you can own it, provided it's in partnership with the state (to some extent). See Jack Ma and his issues with Ali Baba as an example.

[xenocratus]

Just swapping the two terms around does not mean the same thing. "Democratic socialism" is socialism. "Social democracy" is still capitalistic with an expanded role of the state. Go educate yourself.

[whatshisface]

The people who got most of the UK social programs started in the 1900s called themselves democratic socialists, not social democrats. I am not sure when the terminology you are describing was introduced, but it is not universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society