Russian troops land in Venzuela

[Dill]

(03-25-2019, 05:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I still kind of object this description, as it is only one of many different definitions. This one is merely the historical one - but most western socialists to not define themselves that way or align with this goal.

I consider myself living in a socialist state and this state has not failed. Certainly not Venezuelan-style. We do kinda suck at soccer, but that's not due to socialism, as the US proves.

Er, let's not underrate historical definitions.  If only my fellow Americans would pay more attention to such when throwing the term "socialist" at anything they don't like, the world would be a better place.

You are correct that socialism is subject to many different definitions, but what unites them all is that their proponents recognize the problem inherent in private ownership of means of production in a free-market economy under minimal state control, and address that problem consciously, explicitly, as inherent to capitalism.  This is, in my view, what separates them from leftish liberals.  Diverse, non-Marxist countries that define themselves constitutionally as socialist states--e.g.,Portugal, India, Nicaragua--fit this definition even when they expand the role of private ownership far beyond that allowed in the Marxist-leninist variety of one party socialist state. But I don't think Austria fits this category. Nor does any liberal parliamentary state, even when a socialist party is in power (Think of France in the '80s or Spain and Greece now--still not "socialist states".)

My two cents--I think what you have in Austria is a liberal parliamentary state sitting atop a mixed economy.   (And now run by two conservative parties bent on rolling back state services.) Social democracy played a decisive role in constructing your state, and so it is a state in which, owing to the struggle FOR socialism by real socialists and social democrats, the quality of life is far better than it would otherwise have been.  Like most Central and West-European states, it greatly benefits from socialist movements (as the US would) without itself being a socialist state as most any political scientist would define one.

Looks like I am between you and SSF, tending towards a stricter definition of socialism but rejecting Venezuela and like states as universal exemplars of socialism, historical or otherwise.