Socialism and communism are 2 different things. Just because some country hangs the word socialist in their name doesn’t mean that they are. North Korea comes to mind. And lip service it is. After the revolution and they have executed all the bougie people, the strongest leader consolidates their power and bans all opposition parties. And even anyone who might pose a serious threat is in danger of death or imprisonment. See: Lenin and Mao for the 2 biggest examples.
Soviet Russia fell into a straight up dictatorship and well, Communist China doesn’t even bother to hide that it isn’t anymore. And neither government allows for much in the way of opposition then and now.
The socialist countries I can think of, like the Nordic countries, allow for open political elections and other parties to exist and participate in government. And they gracefully share and relinquish power if they lose an election. And interestingly enough, they don’t feel the need to brag about their socialism either. They just are.
The DPRK is a socialist country, not because they claim to be, but because public ownership is the principal aspect of its economy, and the working classes control the state. The WPK did not ban all other political parties, in fact the Chongdoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party both have a small number of seats in the Supreme People’s Assembly.
The USSR was not a dictatorship, either. Soviet elections had some of the highest rates of turnouts in the world, around 85%, and had recall elections at all levels. What the Soviet Union had was the dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words non-proletarian classes were stripped of political power. Same with the PRC, which enjoys a populace that believes themselves to be extremely democratic:
Communism is a fully collectivized mode of production and distribution, in classless society. No socialist country has made it to communism yet, because communism itself requires incredibly highly developed productive forces and global socialism before it can be established. Communism is not “extreme” socialism, nor is it “antidemocratic” socialism.
When you call imperialist social democracies like the Nordic countries “socialist,” you are confusing welfare capitalism for socialism. In the Nordics, the working classes get a large share of the spoils of western imperialism, while capitalists continue to dominate the economy and the state. Nordic welfare depends not on an internally socialist economy, but instead on financial domination and extraction of the global south.
Further, you are confusing liberal democracy for democracy in general. The western model of democracy is just one of many, and it’s the one best suited to maintaining capitalist control. This is why socialist countries have established more cohesive, comprehensive, and participatory government systems at all levels than capitalist countries have.
The Nordic countries don’t brag about socialism because they aren’t socialist in any capacity, and simply forced the inherent problems with capitalism onto the global south, rather than dealing with them domestically.
Socialism and communism are 2 different things. Just because some country hangs the word socialist in their name doesn’t mean that they are. North Korea comes to mind. And lip service it is. After the revolution and they have executed all the bougie people, the strongest leader consolidates their power and bans all opposition parties. And even anyone who might pose a serious threat is in danger of death or imprisonment. See: Lenin and Mao for the 2 biggest examples.
Soviet Russia fell into a straight up dictatorship and well, Communist China doesn’t even bother to hide that it isn’t anymore. And neither government allows for much in the way of opposition then and now.
The socialist countries I can think of, like the Nordic countries, allow for open political elections and other parties to exist and participate in government. And they gracefully share and relinquish power if they lose an election. And interestingly enough, they don’t feel the need to brag about their socialism either. They just are.
The DPRK is a socialist country, not because they claim to be, but because public ownership is the principal aspect of its economy, and the working classes control the state. The WPK did not ban all other political parties, in fact the Chongdoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party both have a small number of seats in the Supreme People’s Assembly.
The USSR was not a dictatorship, either. Soviet elections had some of the highest rates of turnouts in the world, around 85%, and had recall elections at all levels. What the Soviet Union had was the dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words non-proletarian classes were stripped of political power. Same with the PRC, which enjoys a populace that believes themselves to be extremely democratic:
Communism is a fully collectivized mode of production and distribution, in classless society. No socialist country has made it to communism yet, because communism itself requires incredibly highly developed productive forces and global socialism before it can be established. Communism is not “extreme” socialism, nor is it “antidemocratic” socialism.
When you call imperialist social democracies like the Nordic countries “socialist,” you are confusing welfare capitalism for socialism. In the Nordics, the working classes get a large share of the spoils of western imperialism, while capitalists continue to dominate the economy and the state. Nordic welfare depends not on an internally socialist economy, but instead on financial domination and extraction of the global south.
Further, you are confusing liberal democracy for democracy in general. The western model of democracy is just one of many, and it’s the one best suited to maintaining capitalist control. This is why socialist countries have established more cohesive, comprehensive, and participatory government systems at all levels than capitalist countries have.
The Nordic countries don’t brag about socialism because they aren’t socialist in any capacity, and simply forced the inherent problems with capitalism onto the global south, rather than dealing with them domestically.