(Original post by anarchism101)
I wasn't aware India even ever claimed to be a 'socialist state'
These states also called themselves democratic. Should we conclude from that that democracy is authoritarian? Of course not. So why should it be different with socialism.
India, like China, was very socialistic. Nehru and his followers bought into the idea that an economy can be run from the top down, by an all knowing, benevolent government. As a result, their economy until recently was an absolute disaster, as was China's.
Once they both adopted more capitalistic ways, their economies took off like a rocket.
Now, it could be argued that China is a good example of a "mixed" economy in action, with elements of both capitalism and socialism, but even there, it is my understanding that the government controlled businesses only exist because massive government funds are pumped into them to keep them alive.
Turn on thread page Beta
Are you a socialist or a capitalist? watch
- 03-03-2012 14:48
(Original post by The Socktor)
- 03-03-2012 18:10
So essentially that's based on somebody proclaiming they were a libertarian. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of a Chinese origin of the word. Which is what I'm getting at. Libertarian or not, the word itself didn't originate there and then. It could be argued that the origins of anarchism, and thus libertarian socialism are prehistoric. Hunter-gatherer tribes had no governments, for instance. If they had no leaders or hierarchies then they would indeed have been anarchists.
"...we should totally bring back slavery, look at how amazingly it worked in building the pyramids!"
Can society work without government? Well, given certain circumstances (them being small close-knit nomadic units), it might. But that does not mean they had no hierarchies. There are anthropological studies into how status was distributed in these kinds of societies which show that witch-doctors, hunters, warriors and 'elders' were held in high regard, and exhibited an almost 'political' influence on their units.
Well, even if that were true. It was intended as a response to your claim that workers self-management can only lead to Stalin/Mao-esc authoritarian regimes. Anarchism in Spain achieved in 3 years what the Soviet Union couldn't in 69. Whether it could have continued to do so without Franco's meddling is another matter.
The Spanish thing was in no way anarchistic. Every anarchist loves to talk about this period without really doing much reading into it.
(Original post by floridadad55)
- 03-03-2012 18:42
India, like China, was very socialistic. Nehru and his followers bought into the idea that an economy can be run from the top down, by an all knowing, benevolent government.