[lbo-talk] What is socialism?

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 13 13:00:08 PDT 2010


Full nationalization was peculiar to Russia, but it was never implemented in Soviet satellites. For example, most of agriculture in Poland was private. There were private and cooperative (not nationalized) industries and retail chains. So that fact by itself implies that full nationalization is not really a crucial condition of socialism.

It can be argued that full nationalization in Russia was not necessarily an intended policy outcome (cf. NEP efforts to "reprivatize" parts of the Soviet economy) but rather a result of low level of industrialization, concentration of land ownership, dictates of civil war and western hostility - but that is academic hair splitting. The bottom line is that full nationalization is not a serious policy proposal.

As to strategic nationalization of key industries - I am with you. I would only add banking to this list. There is no good reason other than laissez faire ideology why banking should remain in private hands - we have public roads, don't we?

Wojtek

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Somebody Somebody <philos_case at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wojtek: I short, East Germany was very much different than West Germany in terms of modernization due to very different historical development going back to middle ages.
>
>
> Somebody: We're still faced with the fact that Soviet-style socialist states stall out economically and require reintroduction of market mechanisms to further develop their productive forces. I agree that Western welfare states and social democracy provide an alternative, but then this only confirms that full nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy is less than optimal over the long-term, On the other hand, strategic nationalizations and selective industrial policy, as seen in countries as varied as France and South Korea in the recent past, and China and Russia today, is much more conducive to sustainable development.
>
>
>
> Sure, East Germany, Poland and Hungary were better off than Romania, Albania, and Bulgaria, as they still are today, but considering their common historical trajectory, it's unclear if they provide any evidence that an indigenous socialism would have succeeded over the long-run where the Soviet variety did not. Cuba's relatively high state of development in 1959 helped enable the impressive degree of human development achieved in the country in the decades thereafter, but ultimately, their system as an economic model is still being at least partially abandoned today.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list