The Nordic countries, for example, have private ownership as principle. As a consequence, their safety nets are eroding, and they depend on imperialism to continue.
I would say their mistake was putting so many chips on the future of fossil fuels. Sweden and Norway both derive enormous amounts of their state revenue from their state-run O&G companies. Venezuela tried a similar move under Chavez back in 2002. As the cost of producing gasoline has risen and the barrel rate has stagnated, their ability to self-finance a socialist state decayed.
Though it relies heavily on market mechanics, the difference is stark when it comes to long-term planning and development, and the gradual collectivization of production and distribution in an increasingly planned fashion has produced incredible results.
I would say the most pivotal policy of the Chinese state revolves around the condition that any business must be majority owned by local people. That includes patents. That includes physical capital. That includes intellectual property and commercial redistribution rights. The Chinese people own the Chinese economy. And this insourcing of legal ownership is what has resulted in the Chinese economic miracle.
By contrast, states like India and Indonesia continue to outsource much of the legal ownership of their work products to western banks and oligarchs. Similarly, the post-Soviet Eastern Bloc dissolved all its state institutions of domestic ownership and outsourced the rent-seeking portions of their economy abroad. The result has been a steady flow of wealth out of the country and a spreading poverty at home.
While westerners often debate the finer points of socialism in theory, the socialist movement in practice has always been first and foremost anti-colonial. Commanding your own wealth, whether you’re a North Korean adherent of Juche trying to build a fully self-reliant industrial interior or a Cuban trying to do Caribbean mutualism with your island as a center of medical R&D, is at the beating heart of Actual Existing Socialism.
The Nords did do that in the 1960s/70s with energy nationalization. But they failed to expand public ownership to non-petro sectors.
That’s a good point, but it’s also important to recognize the role of private capital in the failures of the Nordic economies. Venezuela is more principled, and doesn’t depend on imperialism either, unlike the Nordics.
Venezuela’s more brown and lacks the benefit of the Cold War to play both sides against the middle. I don’t think its a matter of principles. Maduro has been more than happy to broker deals to lift sanctions and reopen international exports with capitalist states, he just hasn’t had the same opportunity to make deals that the Nordic States have had with BP, Shell, and Exxon.
Hell, the Chavezmos didn’t even try to nationalize their economy. They built everything socialist out in parallel with the spare oil cash. At least the Nords had the good sense to nationalize health care and education.
I would say their mistake was putting so many chips on the future of fossil fuels. Sweden and Norway both derive enormous amounts of their state revenue from their state-run O&G companies. Venezuela tried a similar move under Chavez back in 2002. As the cost of producing gasoline has risen and the barrel rate has stagnated, their ability to self-finance a socialist state decayed.
I would say the most pivotal policy of the Chinese state revolves around the condition that any business must be majority owned by local people. That includes patents. That includes physical capital. That includes intellectual property and commercial redistribution rights. The Chinese people own the Chinese economy. And this insourcing of legal ownership is what has resulted in the Chinese economic miracle.
By contrast, states like India and Indonesia continue to outsource much of the legal ownership of their work products to western banks and oligarchs. Similarly, the post-Soviet Eastern Bloc dissolved all its state institutions of domestic ownership and outsourced the rent-seeking portions of their economy abroad. The result has been a steady flow of wealth out of the country and a spreading poverty at home.
While westerners often debate the finer points of socialism in theory, the socialist movement in practice has always been first and foremost anti-colonial. Commanding your own wealth, whether you’re a North Korean adherent of Juche trying to build a fully self-reliant industrial interior or a Cuban trying to do Caribbean mutualism with your island as a center of medical R&D, is at the beating heart of Actual Existing Socialism.
The Nords did do that in the 1960s/70s with energy nationalization. But they failed to expand public ownership to non-petro sectors.
That’s a good point, but it’s also important to recognize the role of private capital in the failures of the Nordic economies. Venezuela is more principled, and doesn’t depend on imperialism either, unlike the Nordics.
Venezuela’s more brown and lacks the benefit of the Cold War to play both sides against the middle. I don’t think its a matter of principles. Maduro has been more than happy to broker deals to lift sanctions and reopen international exports with capitalist states, he just hasn’t had the same opportunity to make deals that the Nordic States have had with BP, Shell, and Exxon.
Hell, the Chavezmos didn’t even try to nationalize their economy. They built everything socialist out in parallel with the spare oil cash. At least the Nords had the good sense to nationalize health care and education.
Being forced into being more correct out of circumstance has also led to more developments of actual ideological growth.