|
Very broadly, socialism is about seeking a replacement for socialism, arguably in the framework of a state, at least initially. Left-liberalism is fundamentally about reforming capitalism, but ultimately replacing it. This divide is what fundamentally separates socialists and liberals. As for the Soviet Union, it is best seen as state socialism applied to essentially a barely developed siege state. It is why there can only be so much "pulled" from the Soviets as an example, but nevertheless may provide an illustration of what may be necessary in the future if we continue to screw up. Also, as the Soviets as "lovely socialism", it is arguably what happens to socialism when it meets a very hard reality. Honestly, I don't think there was another way for the Soviets to develop the way they until arguably the late 1930s. Worker control over the means of production could have been conducted...but probably also would have lead to the collapse of the country considering its state during the 1920s (the issue was wages). Also. the NEP was completely unsustainable. The chief issue was trade. Also, arguably Scandinavia isn't "socialist" itself but that fundamental improvements have occurred through policies of social democratic parties within a mixed market model.
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:29 |
|