Was there ever a non-Marxist socialist state?
More specifically a state without the centralization advocated by Marx?
>>76263294
>Revolutionary Catalonia
>Mexican Zapatist controlled area
>Rojava
Arguably Yugoslavia. It was still centralized and had a lot of nationalised businesses but there was way more free enterprise than Marx advocated.
Honestly the only way in which Yugoslavia was socialist was the monoparty system and authoriarianism, otherwise it was just a pretty standard Yuropean welfare state before EU opening of borders
Reminder that marxism is NOT pro-immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9mSBQeRlKc
>>76263483
σkασε
Yeah the French colonists made one in Texas
It was an absolute failure and didn't last a year.
We even built a restaurant to mark where it was in Dallas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_R%C3%A9union_%28Dallas%29
>>76263483
Marxism is pro-emigration
>>76263422
I don't know anything about Yugoslavia, but from what you're saying it sounds more like a half-capitalist state.
>>76263395
>>76263516
So only very small-scale (and mostly short-term) projects?
Other than the lack of centralization, was there still a Marxist basis somewhere?
>>76263483
That's because too many immigrants and it will collapse the fragile economy that is a communist welfare state. All communist societies are a ticking time bomb. The people at the top do what they can to prolong it but eventually the society will fail if faced against a free market adversary or a revolution within because of a failure to give gibs me dats.
>>76263634
Yugoslavia was weird. You couldn't fart without getting a government permit for it but as long as you weren't an outspoken critic or had a guy who hated you, you could get a permit for anything.
And the subsidies. Oh lord, the subsidies. The government subsidized everything. Want to build a farm in this underdeveloped shithole? Here, let us pay for half of it. Turning a shitty pre-war hovel into a decent house? Yep, have our money.
Taxes were very high, and the government would buy (and force you to sell if you weren't selling) any business that got big on an international scale (Krka, Iskra). But people still got to lead comfy lives until it all went to shit, at the cost of an insane amount of public debt of course.
>>76263294
Socialism by nature is the centralization of power. So id say not, any state that claims to be Socialist yet doesn't centralize power wouldn't be considered Socialist.
The centralization of power is the single most dangerous phenomena to occur in human history, the sheer insanity it has the potential to produce is unfathomable.
>>76264230
Well you could have the odd deluded individual who truly believes a state whereby every individual worker has an absolutely equal share in the decision-making.
Syria, Libya, DPRK
>>76264643
*believes IN a state
>>76264701
All have/had centralized govts.
>>76264230
> t. deluded capitalist
What's to stop corporate entities from centralizing power with no state to curtail them?
>>76264982
The state will curtail them.
>>76264789
Oh. Only read the first sentence of your post.
>All have/had centralized govts.
Libya famously did not. Read up on the Jamahiriya.
Also Marxism is not really an ideology about how socialism should be constructed. Like .1% of Marx's work is about describing socialism or even prescriptive at all.
>>76263294
What's wrong with centralization?
>>76264230
>dis idealism
centralization of power is inevitable under monopoly capitalism (imperialism) and that's not gonna change whether or not you want it to.
>>76265075
But what about international trade deals that allow corporations to sue governments that threaten their profits, in specially created commercial courts? How will that work out? Are you ready to have your bill of rights removed from the constitution because it was a clear and constant drain on MammothCorp Inc.'s profits?
>>76265127
>Marxism is not really an ideology about how socialism should be constructed.
Marx did literally advocate centralized control over the means of production under a ruling class.
>>76265213
I'm not making judgments, just asking a question.
>>76264982
what's to stop the State from centralizing power?
>>76265213
all eggs in one basket
>>76265307
>Marx did literally advocate centralized control over the means of production under a ruling class.
because it's necessary to overthrow and supress the old ruling class
>>76265429
Thank you for admitting your mistake.
>>76263294
Czechoslovakia before the USSR ruined it.
>>76265774
there was no mistake. the keyword was "should" vs "necessary"
Marxism isn't based on the platonic ideal of an imagined state, just the practical demands of conditions which are always changing
>>76266324
Marx advocated the centralized control of the means of production in the hands of the state.
This is literally in the communist manifesto:
>"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State"
>>76265372
You can take account for that in your planning.
>>76266399
under specific historical conditions, not because of some ideal vision of what socialism "should" be
Clement Attlee's socialism was based off of the the "modern liberal" theories of Keynes and William Beveridge.
The Labour party of the time was probably full of Marxists though, so it's impossible to say that Marxism didn't influence the post-WWII socialist state in Britain.
>>76264982
The only socialist type things i would ever advocate, and they precede Socialism, and that is nationalization of the central bank to become a true nation state again, or to abolish it. And the enforcement of basic anti-monopoly laws.
The problem is most nations have anti-monopoly laws, they just arent enforced, really its a lack of a true nation state and this internationalization that is hurting countries..
>>76266707
Says you.
