this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
32 points (94.4% liked)

Asklemmy

54374 readers
597 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?

top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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 4 points 6 days 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 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

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

that's what americans said about trump and here we are halfway through his second term.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The Congress party is like the democrats, but far worse, being led by a nepo baby. I know for a fact they ain't keeping that seat longer

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

That explains recent Kerala election.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml -5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't think the PRC falls into the bracket of socialist countries. If you apply for jobs, nine out of ten times you will end up working for a compamy owned by one boss or a board, and that makes the principal aspect of economy owned privately. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

That's not what I mean by "principal." The principal aspect of something is that which is rising, dominant, and determines the character of a system. In China, the commanding heights of industry are overwhelmingly publicly owned. Private ownership is largely of the petty type, or in secondary/high competition categories, with more state oversight the larger and more important the industry is.

As these firms grow, they are gradually folded into the public sector. Capital exists in a birdcage that the CPC can gradually tighten as they please, thanks to the political power they have, and they allow capital to serve the purpose of building up the productive forces to service the future economy that is more publicly planned.

[–] mitram@sopuli.xyz 8 points 6 days 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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 days 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 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Absolutely, I could have worded it better.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

No worries!

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days 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 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What definition would you use?

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

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

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

Lol I myself misunderstood what socialist democracies look like.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Based on friends Ive met at university, who were from India, it sounds like your school systems are better designed as well.

Also every Indian I've met (at university) has really high math skills compared to an average American college student.

I even was trying to do this optics calculation for a project and couldn't find any professor that was familiar with it but my friend from India who had a background in medical device engineering and psychology was like "oh yeah I've done those types of calculations" and she knew right away what I was trying to do.

She told me that math is incorporated into multiple subjects even at a young grade level. It's not studied isolated like it is in Western schools.

She had learned the optics formula in biology class ! (Calculating depth of field of a human lens , btw).

She also told me that, at least in her school, spoken english was common so pretty much everyone knew how to speak it fluently.

I can't recall what part of India she is from specifically. And I also admit that graduate students like her, often come from more affluent families so maybe her experience isn't average. But she implied that it was.

We talked about a lot of culture things. Some things better over there. Some things not. Or just different.

But the school thing stuck out for me. Reminded me of the German approach when it comes to specializing. Even in high school the school determines what you are best suited for and you start your education then towards that career. Not how it works in the u.s. we have some flexibility of coursework but the school does not choose it for you. And the preparation courses are very limited. They are still mostly general education courses.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I can't recall what part of India she is from specifically.

A wealthy part would be my guess!

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Not wealthy as per se, but she definitely must have gone to a decent private school. Upper middle class most likely

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Socialist democracies look like capitalist democracies that fear socialist revolutions.
Even the US was one from 1930 until around 1982.

[–] mitram@sopuli.xyz 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not socialist, social-democracies.

[–] sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 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 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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 2 points 6 days 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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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

[–] fatur0000new@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 days 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 0 points 6 days 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 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Would you describe India as a social democracy under Modi? I am hesitant to. There are robust welfare schemes no doubt but the leanings are overwhelmingly capitalist especially in areas of the country controlled by the BJP.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

It still has the skeleton of it, like modi government still didn't change most of the things that make us social democracy. Though under modi we have to care more about oligarchy and fascism than being called social democracy

[–] undrwater@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (2 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 5 points 6 days 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 -1 points 6 days 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 4 points 6 days 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.