• yucandu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    By this absolutist logic, a socialist country is not a “socialist” part of a capitalist world, because it exists in the broader capitalist machine and must use its tools.

    What is the point then? If you don’t want to call anything “socialism” until the very last human on earth is socialist, fine, I will focus more on improving people’s lives than haggling over definitions.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      This isn’t true, though. Socialism is a transitional status towards the goal of Communism, states that are pushing forwards on that goal, or “on the Socialist road,” play a progressive role, while Capitalist countries take a regressive role. Socialist countries indeed exist in the context of a world economy dominated by Capitalism, but are moving against that.

      I call many countries Socialist, like the PRC, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, former USSR, etc.