Socialism is Winning, All Over the World

The Socialist International is an international organization of socialist and social democratic parties all over the world. It is one of the most powerful organizations on Earth because many nations all over the world have very powerful or even ruling parties that are members of the Socialist International. It might surprise you who is a member of that group.
For instance, the PRI in Mexico, the AD in Venezuela, APRA in Peru, the National Liberation Party in Costa Rica and the Liberal Party in Colombia are all members (not that those parties are any good!), as is the PRD in Mexico, New Space in Uruguay, the PNP in Jamaica, the Socialist Parties in Albania, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Uruguay and Yemen, the Labor Parties in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Israel, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia, the Social Democrats in Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Romania and Slovakia, PANOS in Greece, the Socialist Workers Party in Luxemburg, the Democratic Parties in Moldova, Slovenia and Serbia, the Democratic Party of Socialists in Montenegro, the People’s Party in Mongolia, the PUK in Iraq, the PPP in Pakistan, the PLO in Palestine, Congress in Nepal, the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon, Democratic Forum for Labour and Liberties in Tunisia on and on. Of course the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and parties like Frelimo in Mozambique, MPLA in Angola, ANC in South Africa, FRETELIN in East Timor, Polisario in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and SWAPO in Namibia are also members.
Socialism isn’t losing at all. Socialist and social democratic parties of various forms are either ruling or in ruling coalitions of many to most countries on Earth or they are large parties in the opposition. Socialism hasn’t failed at all. It won, it’s winning, and it will continue to win.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

43 thoughts on “Socialism is Winning, All Over the World”

  1. Would you say Islam is socialist? I do understand that Medina under Muhammad was a welfare state. Also, Muslims are required to give to charity a portion of their income (Zakat). In theory, Islam seems socialist. Not only that, but if you count Islamic theocracy (such as that established by Muhammad and his four immediate successors, which is not really like Shia Iran or Wahhabi Saudi Arabia) as socialist, then indeed socialism is gaining much ground. As it seems to me that Islam is the only religion to stand the test of time in face of changing circumstances. Many Christians are only “cultural Christians” but mostly secular and non-practicing. Islam is only truly losing out in areas of Russia (in my understanding not due to Islam itself but due to cultural pressure and even subtle suppression) and in sub-Saharan Africa (discounting almost all Muslim-majority SSA nations). Well, that is what I have seen, and that is my most humble opinion.

    1. Islam is a very socialist religion. Neoliberalism will never go over well in most Muslim countries. The only places where radical capitalism has been tried are in the periphery – in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Philippines. The first four are Hinduized and the last is not Muslim majority. In Indonesia, Islamists have waged war on the Left as Godless atheists.

      1. In your opinion Robert, and I mean strictly in your opinion, do you consider Iran to be socialist? They certainly don’t subscribe to the labor theory of value, or any other Marxist doctrines. They do however spend a huge chunk of their national budget on social programs and subsidies. The State also runs several industries according to wiki. My question to you is: What constitutes a socialist country? Can even a theocracy be socialist as long as egalitarian wealth distribution is a priority? Or does the state absolutely need to subscribe to Marxist doctrine and theory as well?

        1. Iran is a basically a socialist or social democratic country, yes. Anything other than a pro-rich, anti-worker, anti-poor, anti-ordinary people, or neoliberal state.
          What constitutes a socialist country? Basic adherence to at least some of the principles of social democracy and a state that advocates and works for the workers and the poor, I would say. So this means that Iran is socialist, yes. Ahmadinejad is sort of a leftwing populist. He has done a lot of great things for workers and especially for the urban poor.
          Can even a theocracy be socialist as long as egalitarian wealth distribution is a priority? Yes.
          Or does the state absolutely need to subscribe to Marxist doctrine and theory as well? No, I am not a doctrinaire Marxist.

      2. In Indonesia most people think Socialism=Communism=Atheism. So there is no hope for the label of Socialism.
        However most political parties indeed support free/cheap education, cheap public transport, cheap rice, and subsidy for the poor. Of course the people loves these policies. So I would say while the people do not like “socialism” they are very much in love with what socialism is (free education, cheap public transport, cheap rice, subsidy for the poor).
        I think rather than branding the above policy as “socialism” it is better to just implement those policies under other name. In conclusion, Indonesians love socialism, they just don’t realize that the thing they love is called socialism.
        Another thing. In the Indonesian worldview Religion is completely opposite of Communism. This is because to them Communism=Atheism. So someone like you Robert would be very confusing to them. You’re a Christian as well as a Communist. This is impossible according to their worldview. Most Indonesians do not consider Communism as an economic system, they consider it as merely a political system that emphasize atheism. They have very little understanding of Communism as an economic idea. One anecdotal example is my former colleague. He was really surprised when I told him that in Communist countries all properties/lands/enterprise belong to the state, there is no private sector. He had never really know what Communism is.

        1. It’s always surprising/confusing to me when I consider Robert being a christian.
          Robert, do you believe Jesus Christ was son of God and died for your sins, etc.? Do you cover your religious views in a post I may have missed? Could be a good post idea if you haven’t done before (and of course if you don’t mind putting your personal religious views on the table for all to see…)

        1. Yeah that is so wrong. Islamic society is like the most un-Libertarian society on Earth. Islam is socialist all the way. It’s also authoritarian. And Muslims have no issues with the state either, as Islam sanctions a strong state.

        2. In the Arab World, Libertarianism (neoliberalism) along with hatred of the state, taxes and love of privatization is popular only in Lebanon, and only among the Westernized Christians there (Maronites), just to give you an example. You really have to twist Islam around wildly to make neoliberalism compatible with it.

        3. In Islam, every one is supposed to give some of their income to the charity, to the poor. There’s a set percentage but I an’t remember what it is. And the religion has an egalitarian (except when it comes to sexual equality perhaps) and community spirit.

        4. I’m not an Imam, but I believe its 2.5% of ones annual net income. That’s how much I give to some random needy person every year and it’s the only Islamic thing I do. During the early medina period, this was to be a voluntary act of charity. However, when the Islamic state was established in Medina, Muhammad sent out his deputies to the wealthy and collected the money to be distributed to the poor. The Arabs called this ‘returning to the poor their dues.’ The term ‘returning’ is interesting and I’ll explain it a bit. From what I had researched a while ago, Muhammad taxed the rich into near poverty until the poor became the new upper class. This new upper class was then taxed so that the wealth would be returned to the (formerly rich) class it was taxed from. As the Islamic empire expanded after Muhammad’s death, the wealth was distributed around this way, and the only way economic equality could be maintained was if the empire continued expanding so that more wealth could be injected and distributed among the populace. This is because the Arabs did not produce anything, they gained wealth through invading others and then equally distributing it among themselves. This would change once the borders began to stabilize and domestic economic output began increasing. Islamic economics is fairly egalitarian however I’m not sure if its socialist per se, I think its in a class of its own.

        5. @ Dota
          That’s a good point about the Arab Islamic empires.
          Many anti-Western deconstructionist types love to point out that while European Christendom was fiercely intolerant, the Islamic world did not force people to convert, did not pogrom them, and at the worst made them pay more taxes.
          Well, the reason why they did leave the local populations alone for the most part was simply to extract wealth through them in the form of taxes.

        6. BAG the Arabs conquered solely for wealth and there was no ‘noble’ purpose behind the Islamic conquests.
          A famous quote by Khalid bin Walid before the invasion of Persia:
          “Do you not see the wealth of the land of the Persians ? Do you not remember the poverty of the land of the Arabs ?”
          Famous Quote by Francis Pizzaro before the invasion of Peru:
          “There lies Peru with its riches; here, Panama and its poverty. Decide, each man, what most becomes a valiant Castilian.”
          Notice a common theme?
          Were the Arabs tolerant? I would say that the Arabs were indifferent to their non muslim subjects but not tolerant per se. Tolerance is engaging another point of view, which the Arabs were not entirely interested in since they believed (like the Christians) that their religion was supreme. Could the Arabs be tolerant? They sure could. In 781 AD the Caliph AL Mahdi invited the Patriarch Timothy 1 to an interfaith dialogue so they that both sides could engage the others point of view. Similarly the Arab philosophers were in awe of greek philosophy because they engaged it. But Muslim philosophy was never as mainstream a movement as some believe (intellectual movements rarely have mass appeal, even today). So I would say that the medieval Arab Muslims were largely indifferent with occasional bouts of short lived tolerance.

        7. Dota,
          yes, 2.5%. A Muslim amusingly told me recently that he gives 2.5% of his income to heart disease research because that is what he is most likely to die of. he then asked is that selfish?

      3. “The only places where radical capitalism has been tried are in the periphery – in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Philippines. The first four are Hinduized”
        I wonder how so many different view regarding a historical events are established but thanks to written history , on truth prevails.
        As far as I can dig in to the history of these four nations they were anything but Islamic some hundreds years ago. Either they were Hindus or Buddhists. It was only after Islam came in India that these places had lost some of their original cultural fabric and gave way for Islam.
        So the correct thing to say would be-
        The India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan were Islamic-ised.

    2. “Also, Muslims are required to give to charity a portion of their income (Zakat).”
      And kafir are taxed out the bazooka. Fuck that. No way would I want my hard earned money going to support lazy, sexist, abusive Muslim men and stupid women who put up with that shit. The muzzies in UK have no qualms about living generation after generation on the dole. In fact, they are PROUD of it and think its their “right”.
      Honest work for one’s keep is a major part of Desi culture. These Desi Muslims like Anjem Chaudhari and others who feel that the British people “owe” them their hard earned money so they can sit on their asses all day and plan on how to ruin non-Muslim culture and Feminism (JIHAD ON THE DOLE) are a disgrace to hardworking South Asians everywhere.
      Thank god this does not happen in the US.

  2. The labour leader in the UK have done a reasonably good job of criticizing the Tory cuts. They will probably be voted in at the next election.
    However, when they were in power in the late 90’s, they abolished free higher education in the UK. They replaced student grants (free money for students to support them while they studied) with loans and they introduced fairly hefty university fees.
    They also supported Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, in contrast to France and Germany.
    They were also a fiercely PC multiculturist party which let in hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year.
    They tried to introduce identity cards and increased surveillance.
    They also ran big deficits nearly every year in prosperous times, adding a lot to the national debt.
    They did some good stuff too, apparently. A fair amount of spending that helped poor communities and the vulnerable, and for example gave them these really good community centres. I don’t know much about this but I used to use the library in one of those community centres and it seemed a really cool place, which had classes and all sorts.

  3. Dear Robert
    I agree that Islam is not libertarian, but Islam recognizes private property and accepts the pursuit of profit. Islam is like Catholicism, halfway between laissez-faire = savage capitalism and socialism defined as public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I think that Islam and Catholicism are essentially right. We should embrace capitalism but at the same time use the state to tame it and to make sure that it works for everybody, not just the big owners of capital.
    Regards. James

  4. The Islamic sultans would KIDNAP very young, WHITE European BOYS and raise them to become the sultan’s personal, ELITE guard and special attack forces. They were loyal to the sultan alone, and did not have conflicting tribal loyalties. They were very highly paid, and always got first dids on the pillaging and looting.

    1. The Islamic sultans would KIDNAP very young, WHITE European BOYS
      You never hear about that in today’s history classes.

    2. The Janissaries right? Bear in mind that there is no “Islamic race”, the people they were doing this were primarily the Turks, and it was a Turkish practice of doing this.

    3. “The Islamic sultans would KIDNAP very young, WHITE European BOYS and raise them to become the sultan’s personal, ELITE guard and special attack forces. They were loyal to the sultan alone, and did not have conflicting tribal loyalties. They were very highly paid, and always got first dids on the pillaging and looting.”
      Those aren’t the only things those young, pretty white boys got first dibs on.
      And Islam claims to be “anti-gay”. Heh.

      1. The Romans also prized very young, fair British boys for use as their household slaves. However, like the sultan’s Janissaries, their is no indication that they were sexually exploited at all.

    4. Why were “they”, these kidnapped Janniserries, given special privileges and got the first dids on the pillaging and looting? They were slave warriors after all what was the entire rationale behind that?

      1. The rationale is that Sultans liked little boys and guy on guy action is rampant in sex segregated Muslims countries while officially being “anti-gay”. Its means they’re anti-gay-marriage, not guy on guy anal.

        1. The rationale was that they were more loyal than the unreliable tribal warriors whom the Ottomans could not rely on. Jaanasaries were also free to get married. Once again Bhabhi, you’re a fucking idiot. This last comment of yours was even dumber than the one where you stated that Valmiki was a shudra.

        2. Why is same sex sexual activity (but not “gay marriage”) rampant in cultures that segregate the sexes? Do the math!
          Sexuality cannot be repressed and when it is, it still finds a way, ANY way, to come out.
          There have been multiple studies and academic research papers written about this, from UK same sex boarding schools (where do you think the term “buggering” originated), to Arab countries, to South Asia and any region of the world where either the cultures keep men and women from one another.
          I have countless examples from my own life to share. From the neighborhood boys and men to even Muslim men that I have dated (after they left their sex segregated countries). To my male travelling companions throughout the Middle East, the Lavant and South Asia who were sexually harrassed constantly BY MEN.
          IT IS RAMPANT.

      2. They were not slaves. They often rebelled and went on strike. In fact, paying for them bankrupted the sultans. They got the special privileges because they had no loyalty to a Muslim tribe. They made the best fighters- the first ones to go in during an attack. They protected the sultan- his bodyguard force.

  5. I don’t know if I am left, right or center. But I want food, clothes and house for everyone before any cultural or religious shit. I want pricing control on essential goods. I want the minimum possible tax on people. I want rich people people to be responsible towards society and not waste money on superficial things.
    In what category, I would be ?

      1. Ha ! thanks anyway…..
        So is it allowed for a Hindu, whose culture and religion is shit, to come aboard the bandwagon of socialism? 🙂
        On a serious note, I really wouldn’t want myself to be attached to any particular ideology as I believe change is continuous and human lives are important than any other damn thing in the world.
        I tell you a a very interesting thing. In the fight against British for freedom, there were some names which commanded more respect from common Indians among other. On the top of the list is Bhagat Singh. He was hanged by British as he killed a British officer. He has become an icon for Indian nationalism and still is.
        What is interesting is that he was greatly influenced by left-wing economic policies. For those who don’t know about Bhagat Singh.
        And same is the case with Subhash chandra bose who had some leaning with left.
        For those who don’t know any thing about these two.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose

        1. Of course, any and all Indian Hindus are welcome on board with the socialist program. Part of the problem to me with India and Hinduism is those entities seem to be among the most anti-socialist entities on Earth. Indians care less about their fellow man than any other humans, and of all the religions, Hinduism cares about people the least.
          But you know, the Maoists of India and Nepal are led by Brahmins.

  6. Famous Desi Muslim in the UK, Anjem Chaudhari, SLAMS SOCIALISM while trying to avert, then justifying the question about his lazy ass being on the goddamned governent dole. This is modern day jizya folks! I’m SO HAPPY I DON’T LIVE IN UK where my hard earned money would go to support assholes like him. They need to be kicked out EN MASSE and sent back to Bangladesh and Pakistan. Better yet, send him to Saudi Arabia or Dubai where his “inferior” South Asian ass would be treated like a SLAVE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7z-_RXWeA

    1. And, dear readers, do not think for a single moment that Anjem Chaudhari’s opinion is an outlier amongst Desi Muslims in the UK on the dole.

      1. Bobby, the radicalization and Saudiization of Desi Muslims has to do with their general low IQ and inferiority complex in the face of Arab Muslims. They are trying to prove their worth to their Arab slave masters.
        Desi Anjem Chaudhari supporting Osama bin Laden WHILE BEING ON THE FUCKING UK WELFARE DOLE!
        Desi Muslim arrogance at its height!
        (please note his propaganda lie that “islam is the fastest growing ideology in the West”… BLATANT LIE!!! People in “our own backyards” are NOT leaving their religions to “embrace Islam” but Muslims are HAVING TOO MANY KIDS ON THE DOLE and THAT is what is responsible for the rise of the Muslims population NOT ADULT CONVERSIONS! and hopefully those kids will REJECT ISLAM when they come of age)
        I’m SO SICK of the lies!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=6jhvbjeERcU

        1. What cracks me up is this crazy Desi muslims Anjem Chaudhari is getting interviewed on international news channels and he’s nothing but a ghetto welfare queen!
          DUDE DOES NOT HAVE A JOB!

  7. 1. I am not an Atheist, I am an anti-theist. Huge difference.
    2. I do not believe in religion and dislike it, however, that does not imply that I dislike religious people.
    3. I believe in the eradication of religion as it has caused the most major and main problems our world has faced and faces today.
    4. I believe in religion, because it is real. I can prove that religion exists, but nobody can prove that god exists. Therefore I do not believe in god.
    5. I believe that modern Christianity is comfort for a lot of people. They say they are christian to feel safe and receive acceptance. Only because society and parental figures forced them to.
    6. I believe that hell has been changed constantly over the years because people grow skeptical of it’s description so they develop a more convincing one.
    7. I believe that I know enough about religion to construct a good argument if I have too, but want to know more as I find some aspects fascinating along with religious paraphernalia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.