this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
37 points (87.8% liked)

Asklemmy

54317 readers
283 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sorry I didn't know which other community to post this onπŸ˜…. So let me take example of my country, Well so what most people don't know, is that India is a socialist democracy by the constitution, and I must admit before I start that yes, there's plenty of problems with this country, but I was surprised by how deep socialist roots go in this country, so I thought a few of India's policies would make an excellent case study.

Firstly, a subtle one, existence of MRP, maximum retail price, on everything you buy. Packet of lays, coke, medicine, everything has an MRP, over which you cannot sell the product for. Enforcement had been weak historically, but even then you would only see people selling above MRP in amusement parks or movie theatres, for everyday shopping, you are almost always likely to pay the MRP price. I was surprised to know that such law doesn't exist in the west, though feel free to correct me.

Second, India's medicine patent laws. India has strict 'non evergreening' laws, which means a patent of a medicine cannot be extended unless you made the medicine better. Also government can give orders to bypass medicine patents if deemed necessary.

Third the farming in India. A nice rabbithole to dig in, but I am picking one example, Amul, the most popular brand of milk in India, is less like a company and more like a co-operative society, where they co-operate with regional dairy farms. Most of the money made by selling the milk actually goes back to the farmers.

Plenty of examples, but just these few I could think of. Infact MRP does not even exist in China, so in that policy, India is literally more left than China.

Yeah again, Indian laws in practice are riddled with corruption, but I think the template they work in are interesting, and I think west would tackle those problems a lot better.

Any more examples of socialist democracies?

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Any more examples of socialist democracies?

Since you mentioned India, Kerala is does not currently have a socialist mode of production (that's a specific way of saying, their economy isn't socialism) but they have been led by socialist parties (parties which are trying to implement a socialist mode of production), and it shows.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Kerala has been one of the biggest success stories of communism/socialism in India that deserves a discussion of it's own

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't the socialists lose the elections just now? I remember Polish media gloating about it.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Well Kerala cycles every 5 years. They'll win the next election, once the regret of electing this government would set in.

Socialism isn't just out of politics, it'll come back.

And by success I meant policy wise too, there's plenty good about Kerala that deserves discussion

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Socialist democracies look like capitalist democracies that fear socialist revolutions.
Even the US was one from 1930 until around 1980.

[–] mitram@sopuli.xyz 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Not socialist, social-democracies.

[–] sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

If we tie in medical patent regulations, price restriction, and any other socially responsible policy everyone is socialist and socialism is everything.

Only part of OPs post that's socialist is the co-op

Socialism is worker control, and ownership, of industry. India, america, and any relitivly progressive country you can name is far from this definition.

I do like those policies though it's just not socialism

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

India is not a socialist democracy, the working classes do not control the state and private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, rather than public. Modern socialist states include the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and partially Venezuela. Former socialist states include the USSR, and the various Warsaw Pact countries. Thinking about "left vs. right" in terms of single economic policies, rather than the dynamics of class struggle in a given society, is an error.

[–] mitram@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Socialism is defined by "the ownership of the means of production by the working class, in a transition to communism".

There's some debate about whether cooperatives satisfy this criteria.

What you seem to be describing is a social-democracy, where there's still the common capitalist dynamics and class interest contradictions, but with the conflict reduced somewhat by appeasing the majority with a social safety net.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Socialism is defined by β€œthe ownership of the means of production by the working class, in a transition to communism”.

This is a definition specific to certain communist ideologies. Valid, but not general.

[–] mitram@sopuli.xyz 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

What definition would you use?

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Anything in the ballpark of "working class ownership of the means of production".

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To be clear, markets aren't anti-socialist and class struggle continue into socialism, the key distinguishing factor is which class controls the state and which aspect of production is principal, private or public.

[–] mitram@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Absolutely, I could have worded it better.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

No worries!

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Lol I myself misunderstood what socialist democracies look like.

[–] undrwater@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Great discussion!

First order of business; let's define "socialism", or "Democratic socialism", because as a citizen of the US, this (these) terms have been bastardized beyond recognition.

Second order of business; the term "left" is also muddled (certainly in my country, but also in the global context). Historically it's those who are nationalist (don't want external rule). Modern usage seems less concrete.

I like the idea of MRP for staple goods. Are there any producers that make the cost of products below the MRP?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

Socialism is a system by which the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy.

[–] Micromot@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Historically it's those who are nationalist (don't want external rule).

If I think of the historical meaning of leftism, I immediately think of marxism, but this would be antinationalist, as the goal is specifically unite all workers of the world and ignoring the country borders. Anarchism also abolishes nation states. What were you talking about in your comment?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

A correction on nationalism with respect to Marxism: nationalism against imperialism and colonialism is progressive, as to truly be liberated the people must not be under threat of empire. Nationalism within the imperial core is reactionary as it protects imperialism.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Oh, well mrp is mostly for packed food and goods. It's extremely rare to find stuff below MRP in normal shops, but some wholesale grocery stores would sell stuff for lower than the MRP.

For stuff like vegetables and fruits, we don't practice MRP, but at the same time, that vegetable is far more likely to come from a local farmer than in USA. Actually unless you buy from shopping markets, that vegetable is 100% from local farmer, and most people don't buy from shopping markets, they buy from local vegetable vendors. There's plenty of government intervention in agriculture that protects local farmers, but currently I don't remember much of it

[–] Telemachus93@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is what you describe really socialism though? Western leftists would probably call these policies social democracy. And yes, they make the life of people in that country better! Relatively high minimum wages, limits on prices (or price increases) for certain things (especially housing), mandatory paid sick leave, mandatory unemployment insurance, and so on are all things that some European countries have in some form or another. And yes, that makes most of our lives (I'm German) relatively great.

However, most of the housing, factories and land are still owned by capitalists. They still exploit their workers and tenants, the policies only soften the blows. In recent decades, the concentration of capital in a few families' hands has also skyrocketed here, which gives them political power (sometimes openly, sometimes covertly) and led to the erosion of many of these social democratic benefits. Also, a lot of the high social security in the west in the past century was only possible thanks to exploitation of people and nature in the global south.

That's why many leftists, at least in the west, don't think that social democracy is enough in the long term. Many even see social democrats as stabilizing the fundamentally corrupt capitalist system by covering up that corruption. For most of us, socialism would mean that, at the very least, big corporations are owned and lead by the workers themselves. That could be cooperatives in markets (market socialism) or that could be some kind of planned economy (not only state central planning, there's also proposals for somewhat or even totally distributed/decentralized schemes). The point here is that there are no more owners of productive forces, who don't participate themselves in production, i.e. capitalists. The existence of a separate capitalist class with a lot of power and opposed to the workers is a common denominator for unneccessary misery in this world. Eliminating that class (that doesn't mean eliminating the people, only expropriating them) would not magically solve all problems in the world, but it would make us freer to seek effective measures.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well there's always some difference in how countries brand yourself vs how they actually function, lol.

This country is absolutely filled with monopolies that make lives of common people worse. In ways they are worse than chaebols of Korea in terms of how untouchable they are. But also there are lines this country would never cross, like agriculture and medicine, cause that would be a political suicide.

Regarding socialism, well truth be told there's plenty of incentive for people the keep the system running the way it is, hence the sorta world socialists envision is really really hard to implement. Not because it's bad, I love the idea of housing as a right, and markets being a co-operative, it's just, how do you even implement it in this atmosphere.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Most of fennoscandia (skandinavia + Finland) think of themselves as ~~socialist~~ social democracies. Although political power of big companies and right wing parties they control has been eroding government ownership of large business, public education system and healthcare system for decades.

Not sure if they are that anymore.

Edit: yes, yes I used a wrong word.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Those are social democracies, socialism requires that the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. Social democracy is largely a concession to prevent socialism.

[–] mitram@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

They were never socialist, they've always been social-democracies, that's quite a difference even though there's dome shared ideological roots.

[–] fatur0000new@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

If you want to ask about socialism, lemmygrad.ml is the right place.

Firstly, a subtle one, existence of MRP, maximum retail price, on everything you buy. Packet of lays, coke, medicine, everything has an MRP, over which you cannot sell the product for. Enforcement had been weak historically, but even then you would only see people selling above MRP in amusement parks or movie theatres, for everyday shopping, you are almost always likely to pay the MRP price. I was surprised to know that such law doesn’t exist in the west, though feel free to correct me.

Second, India’s medicine patent laws. India has strict β€˜non evergreening’ laws, which means a patent of a medicine cannot be extended unless you made the medicine better. Also government can give orders to bypass medicine patents if deemed necessary.

Plenty of examples, but just these few I could think of. Infact MRP does not even exist in China, so in that policy, India is literally more left than China.

Market interventionism (example: price control) isn't leftism. Paternalistic conservatism is rightist ideology that uses market interventionism.

Third the farming in India. A nice rabbithole to dig in, but I am picking one example, Amul, the most popular brand of milk in India, is less like a company and more like a co-operative society, where they co-operate with regional dairy farms. Most of the money made by selling the milk actually goes back to the farmers.

Nice information.

I am sorry if my english is bad.

[–] allywilson@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The UK has RRP as an equivalent, but they address the problem differently really. MRP is stop price gauging I think, whereas RRP is there to incentivise retailers to offer discounts to lure more customers.

We also have co-op's that run supermarkets and banks, but they compete against private companies.

I think Europe is fairly social in its services (healthcare, pensions, etc.).

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yup, erurope definitely is. Infact India, despite being socialist democracy, does not have real ways of tackling healthcare and pension. Yes we have government funded hospitals but the service there is abyssimal. Only thing I know about Europe is that they don't have any equivalent to Indian medicine laws, rest I agree on

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Many people like Canada compared to the USA for its more socialist policies like healthcare and social safety nets. These systems aren't perfect in Canada but are certainly better than not having them. The problem is we can't call it socialism because many on our far right will twist anything with socialism included in it to equal literal nazis. A lot of those same far right also push for more police power, deportation, and overall a national "white Canadians" world view. Its fucking stupid.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Healthcare isn't a "socialist policy," socialism is a system itself. You cannot slice up a capitalist system and designate parts of it as capitalist and parts of it as socialist. Socialism is, quite simply, a system where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. Canada is an imperialist state controlled by capitalists and founded on settler-colonialism.

[–] Salomon@mander.xyz 4 points 1 day ago

To be clear there is no such thing as "socialist" or "capitalist" policy, both are merely modes of production, where socialism is where public ownership dominates and workers control the state, and capitalism is where private ownership dominates and the capital-owners control the state. In other words, socialism is a workers' dictatorship, capitalism is a dictatorship of capital. Canada falls under the capitalist mode of production. Although welfare is a very big part of socialist theory.