Venezuela economic challenges today; Is Venezuelan socialism to blame partly? Are Scandinavian social democracy/welfare state success stories true?

Last updated on 18th Feb. 2018

I came across this article a day or two ago, Traveling Through Venezuela, a Country Teetering on the Brink, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/world/americas/a-reporter-travels-through-venezuela-a-country-teetering-on-the-brink.html, Feb. 9th 2016. I have given below some comments I made on a post that I wrote on the Facebook timeline of a person who used to live in Venezuela earlier but now has moved to USA. [Hope going through just my comments in the comment exchange is not that unpleasant. I think it does convey my limited view of the matter and that's why I decided to put it up as a blog post.]

My God! Are things that bad in Venezuela today! Hmm. Part of the reason surely would be the collapse in the price of crude oil as mentioned in the article (main source of revenue for Venezuela, I believe). But there would be other reasons too. Perhaps your view is that Venezuela style socialism has to take part of the blame?
...
Sorry to know about you having to leave Venezuela due to political situation there. I should add that my experience in India is that there was tremendous economic stimulus and energy after India moved away from govt. controlled economy to liberalized economy in the early 1990s. Somehow, free market enterprise creates an environment where some people get really motivated to create companies or participate in companies as employees, which earns a lot of profit and pays back its founders & employees.

Indian govt. sector, in general, does have problems of bureaucratic inertia and also corruption, though one cannot say that it affects all govt. sectors. However, the free market enterprise system in India has created significant levels of wealth and income inequality which has created some social tension and problems as well. The challenge for India is to have inclusive growth. The conditions for the poor have surely improved dramatically over the past few decades with lots of govt. subsidies and freebies. However, a MASSIVE population with HUGE amount of youngsters is testing the system due to its rather large levels of wealth and income inequality.

All said & done, India despite having around one and a quarter billion people is doing quite OK in terms of social stability and better lives for most of the poor in the country. Of course, a lot needs to be done to improve the lives of the poor. All I am saying is that they are, in general, better off than they were two to three decades ago.

The collapse of crude oil prices have hit oil exporters like Venezuela hard but it has benefited importers of crude oil like India! It is sad to see this. Ideally one would like both the common people of Venezuela and the common people of India to live decently without facing struggles for basic amenities.
...
History teaches us that there is always some level of inequality in societies that are able to stand the test of time. And that there are leaders who typically are well paid in some form or the other by the society at large, and there are followers/supporters of these leaders. The leaders and/or the dynasty of leaders, who are able to stand the test of time are typically those who are able to govern with justice/DHARMA, and the society as a whole flourishes even when there is some level on inequality within the society, when the leaders rule with DHARMA/Justice.
=======================================================

Update on 12th Feb. 2018 after a gap of two years from date of original post (above contents)

In response to a comment made by my Venezuelan Facebook friend who now lives in the USA, made a few days ago, "See brother, it has gotten worse and worse...", I (Ravi) wrote (slightly edited):

I am so sorry to know that it has gotten so bad in Venezuela. I have not been reading much news on Venezuela in News feeds and Indian print media. Plan to browse for it and get some idea. I think oil prices in world market have risen significantly. Hopefully that has eased some of Venezuela's financial problems.

Update: On browsing got this recent Guardian article: Colombia and Brazil clamp down on borders as Venezuela crisis spurs exodus, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/08/venezuela-migrants-colombia-brazil-borders, 9th Feb. 2018.
An extract from it, "The International Monetary Fund forecasts hyperinflation in Venezuela will hit 13,000% this year, so most salaries are now worth the equivalent of just a few British pounds a month.

All but the very wealthiest, or those with access to support from abroad, are struggling to find or pay for food. Looting to eat is on the rise, with reports of people stoning a cow to death, butchering horses from a veterinary institute and raiding a fishing boat for sardines."

My God! I am so very sad to know this. All I can do from Puttaparthi is to pray. I pray to Almighty God to help Venezuelans to come out of their dire suffering situation so that there is enough for all Venezuelans to live decently and with dignity. Jai Sai Ram!
----

My friend responded:
Thank you for your prayers brother!! See... this is what happens when socialism takes over.
...
Let it be a warning for all those who have the trend of flirting with the Left Wing and so and so. When you really apply it, misery is what follows
----

I (Ravi) wrote:
Well, there are Scandinavian countries which are held up as success examples of socialism (without it slipping into dictatorship but remaining a democracy).

In my view, socialism and communism have been failures in the most of the developing world from an economic point of view with the sole exception of communist China which has achieved stupendous economic growth after economic reform done in the late 1970s and early 1980s under Deng Xiaoping. However, I am not comfortable with the authoritarian attitude of Chinese communism and its lower level of freedom as compared to democracies including that of India.

I don't know enough about Scandinavian countries whose socialism is without authoritarianism and with full democratic freedom that the Western world enjoys, and which have been economic successes, so far at least. But in the discussions on these matters, Scandinavian countries are held up as examples of successes of socialism with full freedoms and democracy by political leaders like USA Senator Bernie Sanders who openly states that he is a socialist.
...
And, of course, as a deeply spiritual and religious man, I am very uncomfortable with Chinese communist history of being anti-religion including its horrendous domination of Tibet.
----

My friend wrote:
Scandinavian socialism is a myth brother.
...
And if china achieved economic success after economical reforms such as allowing free market and private property to exist, then wouldn't you agree that it is not right to deem it socialism but capitalism?
...
[My friend provided this linked article:] No, Bernie Sanders, Scandinavia is not a socialist utopia, https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html, dated 15th Oct. 2015.
----

I (Ravi) wrote (slightly edited):
I agree with you that the economic success achieved by China through market economy and private wealth (they have many billionaires now) is capitalism, and cannot be called communism. I should have mentioned that in my earlier comment with respect to China. China calls it "socialism with Chinese characteristics" but a Chinese dissident based in the USA calls it "capitalism with Chinese characteristics" and I tend to agree with the latter view :-).
----

My friend wrote:
That's ok brother!
----

I (Ravi) wrote (slightly edited):
Brother ---, just read the Boston Globe article (I used to read Boston Globe quite often when I was living in New Hampshire/Massachusetts in the 80s, and so its nice to read a Boston Globe article :-) ).

Hmm. It is a contrarian view from the views that I had read earlier about socialism in Scandinavia. Thanks for sharing this contrarian view.
...
Today's The Hindu carried this article on Venezuela crisis: We need a financial rescue plan for Venezuela: Colombia, http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/we-need-a-financial-rescue-plan-for-venezuela-colombia/article22716608.ece.
----

My friend wrote (slightly edited):
Regarding the article is good that newspapers like the Hindu are showing a little bit of what happens in Venezuela.

I'm very [pessimistic] about Venezuela though, I say that now it is too late to do anything. See Cuba's regime for instance. This year it's going to be the 60th year of the dictatorship and nothing has happened [sad-icon]
----

I (Ravi) marked the above Facebook comment with the sad icon.
====================================================================
14th Feb. 2018 Update

A correspondent and I had the following exchange (slightly edited; correspondent was OK with public sharing) on the above 'Update on 12th Feb 2018 ...' contents:

The correspondent wrote:
Whatever you call it, Venezuela is a failed state run by a military dictatorship.

Denmark is a functioning democracy that has been run on-and-off by social democrats and on-and-off  liberals for more than a 100 years. Progress has been reasonably steady. It's not perfect of course, but there is no reason to bad-mouth it or deem it a faliure because "socialism" isn't a swearword there. [Earlier generations of Danes] spent as much time fighting communists as fighting NAZIs (extreme left-wingers and extreme right-wingers).

http://www.copcap.com/newslist/2017/denmark-12th-on-global-competitiveness-index

https://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark (a US conservative view)

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/denmark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Denmark

https://www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/denmark

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/welcome-to-the-happiest-country-on-earth/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Denmark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_Denmark

https://www.thelocal.dk/20141028/denmark-top-five-gender-equality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Denmark

Note that [the above] list of links was just a semi-random collection of what could be found on the web in a few minutes.

It's a very nice place.

And it runs at a profit.

Just compare it to any country on earth.
----

I (Ravi) responded:
Thank you so much for your valuable response. I will go through all the links.
----

I (Ravi) wrote:
I also want to ask your view about this particular point. You see, my initial takeaway from the Boston Globe article https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html, by Jeff Jacoby whose wiki page indicates that he is a noted conservative voice in mostly liberal Boston Globe opinion writers team, has been that he claims Scandinavian economic (and other) successes are due to their Nordic work ethic and other Nordic culture features, and NOT due to socialist/welfare-state policies they have adopted in the past few decades (after late 1960s according to him). In fact he makes this rather challenging statement, "The good outcomes and high living standards they produced antedated the socialist nostrums of the 1970s. Scandinavia’s quality of life didn’t spring from leftist policies. It survived them."

I don't think the article provides data to back his above view barring some extracts from some book which too seems to be opinion without hard data to back them.

I think socialism and welfare-state approach are terms which are used by many people to describe many different policies and approaches to governance. Very unfortunately, in countries like Venezuela they are used to justify dictatorship and suppression of dissent.

While I have my strong concerns about Indian brand of socialism that was practised for a few decades before India's 1991 financial crisis, I think it is very important to highlight success stories of socialism and welfare-state approach ALONG WITH FULL FREEDOMS of contemporary Western democracies. I have the informal view (not backed by in-depth study due to lack of time) that Scandinavia and even Canada perhaps are examples of that. The above criticism by Jeff Jacoby challenges those informal views of mine where he attributes success of Scandinavia to factors other than socialism and says that socialism is actually a drag on Scandinavia! I would very much value your views on this specific point, whenever you can spare the time. And I would like to share those views too of yours publicly so that my readers get a balanced view of the matter.

Thanks. And do feel free to ignore this mail if its sucking up too much of your time. But I think your views have helped me (and those of my readers who read those comments of yours that I shared publicly after getting your OK on it) get a far more balanced view of economic viability of socialism and welfare schemes than my earlier views (few years ago before my exchanges with you on these topics) which were based on its (variants of socialism) economic failure in India, Russia, some Latin American countries etc. and in contrast to extraordinary economic success of out-and-out capitalist USA.
----

Correspondent wrote back [my responses to it are given inline below between Ravi and end-Ravi tags]:
The Scandinavian countries have more personal freedoms than almost all other countries. To the annoyance of the "capitalists"/conservatives, those countries run at a profit (as opposed to, say, the US and the UK).

[Ravi: Jacoby's article tends to give a view that Scandinavian countries' welfare-state/socialism approach has turned sour. Given your above point about Scandinavian countries running at a profit, it seems to me that Jeff Jacoby has been somewhat unfair in not highlighting this point. I think it is a vital point as the usual argument against welfare state approach is that it leads to big and unsustainable debts and deficits (which I think is what happened to India in 1991 forcing India to send some of its gold reserves to London in exchange for an IMF/World Bank bailout). end-Ravi]

Since these countries are democratic (more so than most other countries), their political systems are roughly what their citizens wanted them to be. Explaining that they succeeded despite their own beliefs and efforts is most patronizing.

[Ravi: So I take it that you view Jeff Jacoby's views as "most patronizing". end-Ravi]

The key laws establishing the Danish welfare state was agreed upon in 1933.

[Ravi: Hmm. That's another point then which Jacoby did not mention and seemed to mislead readers when he conveyed that the welfare state policies were adopted by Scandinavia in late 1960s. end-Ravi]

Democracy and religious freedom was established in 1849. The laws that eliminated the economic basis for the aristocracy and legal distinctions among people were passed (by royal decree) in 1777. Things take time.

If you are a politician or pundit arguing for US-style right-wing policies, you have roughly two choices: you can ignore Scandinavia or explain away their success. Usually they do both by ignoring all but the inevitable problems and failures.

[Ravi: I see. That's a very helpful counter point to Jacoby's article. end-Ravi]

For example, a few years ago, I often heard "if the Scandinavians are so happy why do they have more suicides than most countries in the world?" They didn't like my usual answer: dark winters correlate with depression, there is less societal prejudice against choosing to end your own life, and they keep good records and don't lie, so what in Scandinavia is recorded as suicide is in most countries on earth listed as something like "heart failure."

[Ravi: Very interesting. I very much like the truthfulness part. end-Ravi]

Scandinavians are by right-wing pundits described as "happy to be mediocre". The lists of winning sportsmen and world-class scientists and engineers is my answer (e.g., more Nobel prizes per capita than most countries).

[Ravi: Good point.
Thanks a ton for these very valuable arguments against Jacoby's article (and similar articles). end-Ravi]

----

Correspondent passed on a link: Safe, happy and free: does Finland have all the answers?, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/12/safe-happy-and-free-does-finland-have-all-the-answers, 12th Feb. 2018.

I responded: Fascinating article. Thank you so much for sharing.
----
============================================================

On my public Facebook post, https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/2083488931867673, having above parts of this post, a Facebook friend commented "So what is your conclusion brother?".

I responded (slightly edited):
Brother --Name-snipped--, I think that socialism/welfare-state policies have been a bad failure in India, Russia, even China (as it is capitalist market policies and private property and wealth concept that has brought prosperity to China and NOT communism/socialism), and in South American countries like Venezuela.

So I don't think socialism is meant for developing world or even somewhat wealthy and powerful countries like Russia whose society was not materially developed like countries in Western Europe in the the past few (say two to three centuries at least).

Western Europe though has had extraordinary development as a society over the past three to four centuries or so, it seems to me. I have not studied the history of Western Europe in detail and so can't quote years and major events that were milestones of that society development. I think people talk of Western Europe's "Enlightenment" starting from a few centuries back.

In the past few (say, three or four) centuries, Western Europe has experienced mind-blowing advances in science and technology (as compared to earlier periods of human history), democracy and political philosophy development, systems of education, military power that enabled them to conquer many other parts of the world (and exploit them as colonies, it has to be said, even if that period of European colonization also had some benefits for the colonized including India like introduction and teaching of Western science and technology) etc. I think these great features of Western Europe have made its society in the 20th and this early 21st centuries, quite materially advanced and sophisticated as compared to the rest of the world including India, of course.

I think socialism/welfare-state approaches to governance and community life can succeed only in materially advanced and well developed societies where virtually all citizens can be properly taught their roles in society with the vast majority of the citizenry learning them well and playing those roles well, by and large.

I don't think most, or I think I should say all, countries of Asia (including India, of course), South America and Africa have such materially advanced and well developed societies today in this early 21st century. So I think socialism and welfare-state models will not work for them today like it seems to have worked for Scandinavian countries.

Is the USA a materially advanced and well developed country like these Western European countries, and so will socialism/welfare-state model work for the USA? Well, I think that is a difficult question to answer. As somebody said, one should think of USA as a continent as there are wide variations across various parts of the USA in terms of development of society. And then USA even today faces the negative impact of its terrible history of not only slavery and even later domination (through Jim Crow type laws/practices) of African-Americans but terrible domination and suppression of the Native American Indians. And then it has significant number of immigrants from all over the world including significant numbers from Latin American countries which are not mature and well developed societies.

So I have my doubts whether the socialism/welfare-state models that worked in Scandinavia will work for the USA. But then the welfare programs that work just above the USA border in Canada, may have a good chance of succeeding in the USA, as there would be quite a few similarities between Canada and USA, as compared to the countries of Western Europe which have a much longer history.
----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The correspondent responded to above exchanges (slightly edited):
Ways of organizing society must vary depending on the society. History is very important for what can be done and how it can be done.

What many people miss is that words like "socialist", "socialism", and "capitalism" mean dramatically different things in different places. Using a single word, such as "socialism" to describe the foul dictatorship of Venezuela (or the Soviet Union) and the free and open Scandinavian countries, is utterly misleading.
----

--Name-snipped-- commented on above mentioned Facebook post,
https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/2083488931867673, (slightly edited):
There are economic doctrines that follow certain practices and pathways. If you regulate the economy excessively and take away private property and pass it on the goverment then it is a socialist model, and that's what happened in Venezuela.

Dont know why people keep insisting on defending this miserable and evil doctrine and keep trying to say that the Scandinavian countries follow socialism.

You just need to read the Communist Manifesto of Marx and compare it to the practices of each country. Plain and simple, and Scandinavian countries are not like that.
...
It is true that it will be always the case that you find mixed policies, but if the policies are predominantly according to those proposed by Marx, then how else can you call it??

And I know what this person is going for. The same lame tactic that all these socialists have used. Not sure if the correspondent does it knowingly or unknowingly. But basically when they have regimes like former Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela, they try to distance themselves from them, they claim that they are not socialists in the true sense of the word and then countries in which there is a free market and free economy, they start claiming that these countries are socialists.

If you have intentions of [promote?] socialism in your country then the additional step is to distance yourself from it and claim that you are not socialist. You can look it up, Castro did it in Cuba... there is a discourse in English in which he claimed he was not a communist, that was at the beginning of his dictatorship, was he not a communist? Then came Chavez, he was elected claiming that he was not a socialist, was he not? It's the same tactic.

I stand on my idea, socialism doesn't work and Scandinavian countries are not socialist. A place with free market cannot be called socialist, at least not if you want to accurately describe such a place.

Things are given names for a reason, so differentiate them from other things that are different. And in science this is a key thing. Although in economical science this principle is a little more flexible, such basic and dramatically opposite concepts surely are not up for grabs, they are well established and are way distinct from one another.
----

I (Ravi) responded:
Very interesting comments, brother --Name-snipped--. Thanks. You are focusing on the term socialism. In my mind, I do not have a clear and crisp definition of socialism with which to understand whether Scandinavian countries can be stated to be following socialism.

Note that the Indian constitution when adopted in 1950 used the words sovereign, democratic and republic to describe India (under that constitution). A later amendment to the constitution which has not been repealed so far, uses the words, "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic" to describe India (under that constitution).

So from a constitution point of view, India is a socialist and democratic republic!!! However, I and many in the world do not view India as a socialist country!

Your comments force me to do some reading up on what today's world describes as socialism and if there is a crisp definition of it which is current and widely used, then view Scandinavian countries from that definition's point of view and see whether they can be described as socialist countries. So thanks for forcing me to do this task.
...
Here is a very interesting and relevant article: Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist, https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist, dated 1st Nov. 2015.

Denmark's PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen says in end 2015 in the context of Bernie Sanders' campaign, "absolutely no wish to interfere the presidential debate in the US" ... "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy" ... "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish" .. "So, what is the catch you might ask. The most obvious one, of course,  is the high taxes. The top income tax in Denmark is almost 60 percent. We have a 25 percent sales tax and on cars the incise duties are up to 180 percent. In total, Danish taxes come to almost half of our national income compared to around 25 percent in the US. Quite a substantial difference".

Ravi: Rasmussen is still PM of Denmark and so we have a sitting PM of Denmark say effectively that Denmark is NOT a socialist country as it does NOT follow socialist planned economy. I would extend that to say that Denmark (and other Scandinavian countries) cannot be viewed as socialist countries as they do not follow the planned economy model with government/state controlling the means of production, which is a key aspect of socialism. Private enterprise and its owners controlling means of production with a free market economy is what Denmark (and other Scandinavian countries) seem to follow, which does not fit in with what a socialist country is, as per my understanding of the term today in this early 21ss century.

But Denmark is termed by Rasmussen as an "expanded welfare state" with "high level of security for its citizens" (security here includes health and other services vital for comfortable living for its citizens). And that is made possible by its higher level of (progressive) taxes as compared to countries like USA.
...
I think the term in contemporary usage for the political and economic policies approach followed by Denmark and other Scandinavian countries is "social democrat" policies. So people of these countries may be saying that they are "social democrats" rather than saying they are "socialists" (in contrast to USA Senator Bernie Sanders who says that he is a socialist). I think I need to do some reading up on the term 'social democrat' too. Plan to do that later.
...
Here's the wiki take on social democracy, which I think seems to match the general view that I had of what 'social democracy' means today. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.

Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism. In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternate path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism. In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.

Modern social democracy is characterized by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, oppression of underprivileged groups and poverty, including support for universally accessible public services like care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers' compensation. The social democratic movement also has strong connections with the labour movement and trade unions and is supportive of collective bargaining rights for workers as well as measures to extend democratic decision-making beyond politics into the economic sphere in the form of co-determination for employees and other economic stakeholders.

--- end wiki extract ---
...

Hmm. Am afraid there is more confusion on the topic of whether Scandinavian countries can be called socialist or not.

Some more confusion on the word 'socialism' from Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

socialism vs. social democracy
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

--- end extract from Merriam-Webster website ---

So according to Merriam-Webster Denmark is now often referred to as following democratic socialism (as 'social democracies' are now often referred to as democratic socialism countries). I think it would be a simple and logical extension of that to say that Denmark is a democratic socialist country. Hmm.

Here's what the Oxford dictionary says, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism:

The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy

--- end extract from Oxford dictionary website ----

The socialism wiki page says that socialism can be in non-market form and in market form! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism :

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

Socialist economic systems can be divided into non-market and market forms.

--- end extract from Socialism wiki ----

So when Danish PM Rasmussen said that "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy", we cannot view that as him saying that Denmark is NOT a socialist country. He did not clearly deny that. He only denied the socialist planned economy part.

My God! How confusing this gets!

I think we don't have a clear and crisp defintion of socialism and socialist today to authoritatively state that Scandinavian countries are socialist or NOT socialist. Some political leaders and writers view Scandinavian countries as socialist as they perhaps view 'social democracy' as a form of socialism. While some other political leaders and writers say that Scandinavian countries are NOT socialist (and they perhaps view 'social democracy' as NOT being a form of socialism).

What's clear though is that the term 'social democracy' is an accepted description of political and economic system followed by Scandinavian countries.

Some important political parties in Scandinavia today which are categorized as 'social democracy' parties, are given below:

1) Swedish Social Democratic Party, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party. Its leader Stefan Lofven is the current Prime Minister of Sweden, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_L%C3%B6fven.

2) Social Democrats (of Denmark), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrats_(Denmark). Its party is not in government now. But its leader Helle Thorning-Schmidt, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helle_Thorning-Schmidt, was Prime Minister of Denmark from Oct. 2011 to June 2015.

3) Labour Party (Norway), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(Norway). Its party leader, Jens Stoltenberg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Stoltenberg, was Prime Minister of Norway from 2005 to 2013. He is currently Secretary-General of NATO.

India's Indian National Congress, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress, is also viewed as a social democracy political party.
------

--Name-snipped-- wrote (slightly edited):
But in any case you can see that even those countries with their not so clear cut definition of whether they are socialist or not, you can still see that they try to avoid being associated with the socialism as done by Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. So then everyone can agree that the kind of socialism that these countries have proposed doesn't work.
-----

I (Ravi) responded:
Oh! In my mind, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba are not functioning democracies and as I am a lover of democracy these countries' current political systems do not appeal to me at all. These countries are in a different category from 'social democracy' countries of Scandinavia.
...
And then there is the matter of market economy or planned economy with state ownership of most or all means of production. I support market economy and do have a view that planned economy with state ownership of means of production has failed in almost all, if not all, countries of the world that tried it. So I do NOT support state planned economy with state ownership of all means of production. I think North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba follow the latter (state planned economy) and so I do not have a positive view of their current political and economic systems.
...
To put it crisply, the socialism variants followed by North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba are NOT good, and I am sure that 'social democracies' of Scandinavia as well as most if not all 'social democrats' of functioning democracies in other countries, will not support those variants of socialism.
----

--Name-snipped-- wrote (slightly edited):
Right, but at some point they were brother, and there (lies) the problem. Because they initially advertise themselves as democracies and they break apart from those socialist countries. It's the same tactic all the time. Cuba's Fidel Castro said they were not socialist or communist and there you have it. Then Venezuela's Chavez said that he was not socialist and what not, he even said Cuba was a dictatorship and not a democracy and surprise!! We even have the Cuban national flag in our military facilities in Venezuela to say the least.

So its all a political strategy. You sell your product with lies and then when you realize it is too late. Same thing is happening to Colombia and Mexico now, they are about to elect people akin to Venezuela's socialism.
----

I (Ravi) responded (slightly edited):
--Name-snipped--, Noted your comment. I guess there is a lot of playing around with the words democracy, socialism and 'social democracy', by leaders especially in developing world (including South America) to maximize their political benefit, without them really being bothered about sticking to those political and economic approaches, and being more bothered about getting power and enjoying that power.

But I wanted to get an idea of what socialism word really means as it gets used so often, either in a supportive way or in a harshly critical way. I think I now understand especially from the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionary descriptions that the socialism word is very elastic in its meaning and is used to refer to many different forms of political and economic policies. So one has to live with that confusion.
----

--Name-snipped-- wrote (slightly edited):
I don't agree because these are terms that have been well studied by scholars. A mere look at the dictionary is not sufficient to just accept that for this term it will be just whatever anyone wants it to be, this is exactly how these kind of things start. If what anyone is trying to do is not socialism, then he/she should provide with a complete description and not just say "its socialism as I understand it", this is akin to saying that an algorithm is just the way the power gets to a computer. It is not.
----

I (Ravi) responded:
I had hoped to get clear definitions from authoritative scholars. Unfortunately I did not get them. Note that top dictionaries like Merriam-Webster and Oxford have scholars who provide meanings for such words to them.

I think some words acquire a life of their own as they get extensively used in society. Then the scholars have to follow those meanings that the word has acquired and document it. Language is not precise. I think socialism has acquired meanings separate from what it would have meant in the initial years when the word was coined. And so now there is a wide variation in its meaning.
...
If you do come across more precise definitions of 'socialism' from authoritative sources, please let me know. Maybe you could get some sources that I could not get in my limited Internet browsing on it.
----

--Name-snipped-- wrote (slightly edited):
How about this one?? There is not a better authoritative source than this one in my opinion!

"There has been talk of achieving equality in society. The equal distribution of wealth through socialism is declared as the ideal, but is it possible to bring about such equality? Even if material wealth is distributed equally, can you ensure equality in desires and aspirations?... You must look beyond material things to the Supreme Being who is the provider of all things. When you recognize the One as present in all beings, and respect everyone as a manifestation of the Divine, you will achieve equality in the true sense of the term."

- [Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba] Divine Discourse, December 11, 1985
[I (Ravi) marked the above comment with a 'Love' icon.]
----

--Name-snipped-- wrote:
Bottom line, socialism doesn't work! :)
----

The 'equal distribution of wealth' part of socialism does not work, and is dangerous as many see it as a ruthless way to rob the rich, even those who have earned that wealth in a fair and ethical way, and give that robbed wealth to themselves with some part of it also being given to the poor.

In my particular case of India, I am dead against such kind of "redistribution of wealth" using ruthless force and against constitution of India that some ****militant (illegally using guns and explosives against Indian security forces)**** variants of socialism preach and practice, and which currently exist and are active in small numbers in some pockets in India. I view them as dangerous to Indian society who will take India in a backward direction and into horrible forms of anti-democracy dictatorship. I fully support the democratic rights of those who use the democratic political process (ballot not bullet) to achieve political power in Indian states as well as union (federal) government and then try to improve the conditions of the poor and marginalized in Indian society via welfare schemes financed through taxation without pushing India into a high debt and high deficit financial crisis (like the terrible and pathetic state India had got into during the Indian 1991 financial crisis). But my statement does not mean that I publicly and politically support such individuals or such parties. I have a publicly neutral stand in Indian politics as I feel that is the right approach for me as one of the roles I play is that of a social media writer on spirituality and religion. I exercise my right (and my duty) to vote in Indian elections but I keep who I vote for as a private matter.

But I disagree with a sweeping statement that "socialism doesn't work" as there are variants of socialism called 'social democracies' especially in Scandinavia which do work, and I don't think that going by current usage of the word socialism, one can authoritatively and definitively say that Scandinavian countries are not following socialism and are not socialist countries. My view now is that they are following a variant of socialism called 'social democracy'.
----

--Name-snipped-- wrote:
Its a shame, you have fallen for their game.
----

You are entitled to your view, brother Ivan Escalona. but I disagree that I have fallen for any "game". I think I have spent time reading up and discussing the matter, and shared most of those findings in this post & comments, and arrived at logical conclusions.

I think your views about socialism are deeply impacted by the horrible variants of socialism that you experienced in Venezuela and what you read about wrt Cuban socialism. Both are horrible variants of socialism.

But you seem to have got so overwhelmed by those horrible variants of socialism that you are not willing to accept the reality that 'social democracy' of Scandinavian countries are viewed as a form of socialism by reputed sources like Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries.

Let me give you the view of another reputed source - Encyclopaedia Brittanica. From https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy, "Social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally espoused state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former’s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society."

The roots of 'social democracy' which is what is in the name of top political parties of Scandinavia which now hold or have held in the recent past, the reins of government in those countries, lies in socialism tenets of Marx and Engels. I think you are simply not able to accept this ****fact**** because of the very sad and very horrible experiences you have had of the horrible variants of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba.

The vital point about 'social democracy' of Western European countries is that, to quote Encyclopaedia Brittanica above, "social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism". So it breaks completely with both the former Soviet Union and the current People's Republic of China as both these forms of government used militancy and totalitarianism to establish themselves and stay in power for decades. China (PRC) today may be less totalitarian and use less force to stay in power as compared to the days when Mao was in power, but it is still a scary dictatorial form of government to me, and I am sure the 'social democracies' of Western Europe will not approve of China's system of government today.
-----

--Name-snipped-- wrote:
Ok
[I (Ravi) 'Liked' the above Facebook comment.]
----

I (Ravi) wrote:
I modified a part of my earlier comment to have some clarification. I have repeated the modified part below:

I fully support the democratic rights of those who use the democratic political process (ballot not bullet) to achieve political power in Indian states as well as union (federal) government and then try to improve the conditions of the poor and marginalized in Indian society via welfare schemes financed through taxation without pushing India into a high debt and high deficit financial crisis (like the terrible and pathetic state India had got into during the Indian 1991 financial crisis). But my statement does not mean that I publicly and politically support such individuals or such parties. I have a publicly neutral stand in Indian politics as I feel that is the right approach for me as one of the roles I play is that of a social media writer on spirituality and religion. I exercise my right (and my duty) to vote in Indian elections but I keep who I vote for as a private matter.
...
I should also add that I publicly and strongly support Indian democracy. That is different from publicly supporting any particular Indian political parties.
...
I felt it appropriate to state that I fully support the democratic rights of registered socialist/communist political parties of India who abide by the Indian constitution and Indian law. That does not mean that I politically support these parties. I repeat that I am publicly neutral in Indian politics. Some of the well known today, registered Indian socialist/communist parties are as follows:

1) Communist Party of India (Marxist), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist). As of now CPI(M) is the leading party in alliances which are in power in the Indian states of Kerala and Tripura. The chief minister of these states is from the CPI(M).

2) Communist Party of India, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India. As of now, this party is not in power in any state in India.

3) Samajwadi Party, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samajwadi_Party. From the wiki page, "Samajwadi Party (SP; translation: Socialist Party; founded 4 October 1992) is a political party in India headquartered in New Delhi and a recognised state party in Uttar Pradesh, a northern state in India. It describes itself as a democratic socialist party." This party was in power in the state of Uttar Pradesh from 2012 to 2017.

4) Janata Dal (United), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janata_Dal_(United). From the wiki page, "Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) is a centre-left Indian political party with political presence mainly in Bihar and Jharkhand." The president of the party, Nitesh Kumar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitish_Kumar, is the sitting chief minister of the Indian state of Bihar.

5) Janata Dal (Secular), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janata_Dal_(Secular). From the wiki, "The Janata Dal (Secular) is an Indian political party led by former Prime Minister of India, H. D. Deve Gowda. The party is recognized as a state party in the states of Karnataka and Kerala."
-----

While I would not classify the Indian National Congress today as a socialist (variant) party, it is a left-leaning political party. I felt it appropriate to give some info about it below.

Indian National Congress, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Congress. This party is viewed as a centre-left party. The wiki page lists many ideologies against this party which has been around for over 130 years. The socialist related ideologies listed in its wiki page are: Social democracy, Democratic socialism, Social liberalism, Gandhian socialism, Left-wing populism. As of now, the Congress is the main opposition party at the union/federal government level in India but is in power in some states of India, including the state of Karnataka where India's Silicon Valley type city of Bangalore/Bengaluru lies (and which is the capital fo Karnataka). It has been a dominant party in Indian politics since independence with the party being the leader in the alliance holding power in the union government last in the period 2009 to 2014 under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The wiki page introduction section has this paragraph:

Congress is a secular party whose social liberal platform is generally considered to be on the centre-left of Indian politics. Congress' social policy is based upon the Gandhian principle of Sarvodaya—the lifting up of all sections of society—which involves the improvement of the lives of economically underprivileged and socially marginalised people. The party primarily endorses social liberalism — seeking to balance individual liberty and social justice, and secularism — asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings.
--- end wiki extract ---

The wiki page also has these sentences (India got independence in 1947):

Following independence, the Indian government officially adopted a policy of non-alignment, although it had an affinity with the USSR. The party's commitment to socialism has waned in recent years, particularly following the assassination of Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. Elected in 1991, the government of Narasimha Rao introduced economic liberalisation with the support of finance minister Manmohan Singh, the former prime minister of India.

--- end wiki extract ---
-----

And then there are militant socialist/communist parties who resort to violence against the state and hence are outlawed. I DO NOT SUPPORT the democratic rights of these parties as they are not following Indian constitution and law, and are resorting to violence and militancy as a means to try to establish power. Of course, Indian governments both at union/federal level and at state levels are usually against these parties. To avoid getting into sensitive territory I am not naming these outlawed militant socialist/communist parties in India. But info. about is easily available with wiki pages too being made on them.
----
===============

Sasikanth Gudla wrote over email and was OK with sharing publicly:
https://sasikanthgudla.blogspot.com/2012/05/socialism-vs-capitalism-vs-socialism.html
Some of my thoughts articulated 5 years ago(hence may not be so well informed/polished)

An hour long talk. Little old one and talks about problems specific to India. But the speaker does touch upon socialist aspects(not too much though) that are needed in the context of India.
Am not sure if it is relevant to the mail thread but felt like sharing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxPJs6R2z8 .
----

I (Ravi) responded (slightly edited):
[About the blog post:] Interesting.

[About the youtube video:] Hope to listen to it sometime. If there is a transcript of the talk that would be great.

----

[I thank Denmark's Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (and thelocal.dk), wikipedia, merriam-webster.com, oxforddictionaries.com and brittanica.com, and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their quotes/website (short extracts from merriam-webster.com, oxforddictionaries.com and brittanica.com) on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]