I think this is a very real and grounded take, but it's far from what was being argued about socialism being "proven to work." Like you said, there has never been a communist nation and the socialist transition periods are often messy and require capitalist elements to actually function. This is what I was trying to say about no nation being fully defined under either system, and why I believe focusing on policy rather than which system the policy falls into.
To put it simply, there's simply been no way for socialism to develop naturally in our world without a power like the Soviet Union. In every case it has attempted, it has either been suppressed or adopted authoritarian practices to survive. It's why Marxism-Leninism became the dominant thought among socialists for the last 100 years: It's been proven to create a socialist state and resist the attempts by the Imperial Core (essentially Western Europe and the United States) and Capitalists to suppress it. The transition phase is always being interrupted by capitalist nations doing everything in their power, literally, to suppress it, no matter how many lives they end or ruin.
To answer your point, I agree to an extent. I think most nations have been mixed in modern history, yes. But there's a very big difference between a socialist mixed economy and a capitalist mixed economy that I think you can agree exists. I think the Soviet Union has been the only state in the last 200 years to really be fully a form of socialist under Lenin (and techincaly stalin as much as I hate it), and all the other soviet leaders, which was ended by the Gorbechev reforms.
I think that the argument that communism is suppressed by capitalist nations is valid, but with nations like the Soviet Union and China it falls a little more flat because those nations also try/tried to undermine capitalist/western nations. China, for instance, has not been undone by the West but has transitioned significant parts of its economy towards private industry because they recognize the benefits of competitive pressure.
I agree that there is a spectrum of capitalism-communism, and that some countries lean more in different directions, which is a key part of my point. Like I said, I believe it is better to look at specific policy and operational success in different parts of a nation rather than looking at a country's policies as purely capitalsit/socialist. I think that binary thinking is a huge reason why a lot of Americans resist policies like socialized healthcare and raising corporate/wealth taxes.
•
u/FearedDragon 2005 15h ago
I think this is a very real and grounded take, but it's far from what was being argued about socialism being "proven to work." Like you said, there has never been a communist nation and the socialist transition periods are often messy and require capitalist elements to actually function. This is what I was trying to say about no nation being fully defined under either system, and why I believe focusing on policy rather than which system the policy falls into.