Which Countries are Socialist? Which Are Not?

I don’t know if I can agree that Germany is a socialist country. Its got a government and a public sector and a welfare system but its got a large private sector. I don’t know what percentage of the workforce work in the private sector for capitalist employers but its a lot. I might look it up. The means of production aren’t socially owned, right?

(Is America a socialist country by your definition?)

My position is that social democracy is a form of socialism. The social democrats call themselves socialists and their parties are typically called socialist parties.

America surely has socialist elements, but we don’t have any big socialist parties in this country. We don’t have a social democratic party or a party calling itself socialist in power in the US. We don’t have a ruling or large party that is a member of the Socialist International, as is the case with possibly most of the countries on Earth.

America has always been a Hard Right country as far as any kind of socialism goes. It’s basically a place for neoliberal experiments. Of all of the world’s richest countries, it is generally agreed that the US is by far the least socialist.

I realize that any social spending or social welfare projects are part of the social democratic project, but I doubt if many social democrats would describe the US as a social democratic country in spite of our meager and tattered safety net.

Now most of Europe is socialist. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are socialist. Japan is socialist. Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, China, Mongolia and North Korea are socialist. 40% of the Nepalese government is held by Maoists. Most of the Arab World and Iran are more or less socialist. Most of the CIS is socialist.

Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Paraguay, Bolivia and some Caribbean countries are at the very least run by socialists. Quite a bit of Africa is run by socialist parties. You can look at the list of the Socialist International and you will see that many countries have ruling or major parties that are part of the SI.

Which places are not socialist? Latvia, Estonia, Turkey, Afghanistan, India, Colombia, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Gabon, Pakistan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia and Hong Kong at the very least.

Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea are uncertain. Singapore has a lot of social democratic elements. Much of the housing is public housing for instance. That’s a socialist project. Taiwan and South Korea both underwent huge land reforms, and Taiwan now has national health care. Further, South Korea has huge state involvement in the economy, and I believe that Taiwan traditionally did too.

Neither Taiwan nor South Korea is run by neoliberal rightwing hardline free marketeers. Both of them seem to be following the Japanese model. The Japanese model is considered to be noncapitalist mode of production. No one really knows what it is. Some call it state capitalism. Others call it national socialism along WW2 German lines.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

10 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Asia, Caribbean, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, Government, Japan, Latin America, Middle East, NE Asia, Neoliberalism, North America, Political Science, Politics, Regional, SE Asia, Singapore, Socialism, South America, South Korea, Taiwan, US Politics, USA

10 responses to “Which Countries are Socialist? Which Are Not?

  1. Hi Robert,

    One interesting thing about Singapore. Shortly after independence they passed laws that says most of the land belong to the state. I read somewhere that about 80% of land in Singapore today belongs to the state. The other 20% of land can be taken over by the state.

    Another interesting issue. I remember visiting an exhibition about the Arab diaspora in Singapore. It is said that they are the largest private land owner in Singapore before independence. They are mostly Yemeni Arabs, yet they are a very small part of Singaporean population (0.2% of the population pre-independence). When you have a small part of the population owning so much land this will create resentment. So I think Singaporean government did the right thing by taking ownership of most land.

    Finally Singapore indeed has some socialist elements including public housing. However this public housing has not been affordable to young couple for quite some time now. I have explained this in my comment here http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/a-debate-about-communism-and-capitalism/#comments

  2. Steve

    Well, that clarifies your position.

    I don’t know what you think about this but it was the labour party in the UK that replaced student grants with student loans, and introduced university tuition fees.

    They did put quite a lot of funding into things like community centres and charities that help the poor and vulnerable, but they were borrowing the country further and further into a sovereign debt crisis (like the Tory government before).

    The national debt is over a trillion and governments of both parties have been running deficits most years since the late 70′s. Fuck! So there is a very real practical fiscal issue that needs to be addressed.

    The present conservative government are at least trying to address it but they have done so by cutting funding to the charities and community projects, cutting jobs in the public sector, and now they are talking about ending housing benefits for under 25′s!

    I can’t say I like what they have done but what are we supposed to do? Keep borrowing forever? How do you stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit without cutting the public sector?

  3. Aditya Kadambi

    India is not socialist?
    Are you all right ,mate??
    India officially claims to have a mixed economy post the early 90s but there are massive socialist schemes & humongous welfare

  4. India’s unfeeling treatment of her lower orders makes what little “socialism” they practice there just about meaningless. Socialism in India? On paper, at best.

  5. Yes, we in the US do have a Socialist Party, and a big one. It just doesn’t add the “Social…” to the “Social Democrat” label. It’s just called the “Democratic Party”. And in England the so-called “Labor Party” fills the same bill. Each believes–and acts on that belief–that everyone’s earnings and property are not their own, and can be looted by the State as the State sees fit. In other words, one’s life and life’s work is not their own but belongs to the State.

  6. Dogmaster

    Richard Kirby was accurate, we do have here in the USA a socialist party and it is the Democratic Party. I do not know enough about the Labor Party in England to offer any comment. Go ahead and ban me the way you banned Kirby, for I know how much you cannot stand a viewpoint opposed to yours, typical liberal.
    Oh, just in case you were wondering, I came across your site because I did a Google search, “Is Peru a socialist country?” For some strange reason I came upon your site in the top few hits.
    Just know this; proper thinking folks are on to you Progressives (translation, Regressives) and we know exactly what you are up to in trying to destroy Western civilization as we know it. Bless your lil’ pea-pickin’ Marxist hearts. That will never happen!! I can assure you of that.
    Nice getting a different word into your ear…now ban me too, you little chicken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s