I didn't mean to point to a single country. It is general sense that I have about some socialist outcomes. Still no debate from me about the damage of sanctions etc. Also I feel sometimes countries hit rock bottom and then adopt socialist policies as a consequence. Thus they are starting from a low spot.

My claim and general belief is that a MUST have distributed decision making mechanism (e.g. market based economy) in order to generate value -- central planning cannot work for modern economies. Of course China and others shows us it is quite possible to be market based even with many socialist/communist properties too.

So I think the original ideas of a centrally planned economy are not successful in practice. That said, I see significant evidence that a centrally INFLUENCED market could be stronger than a more pure distributed market. e. g. China can make strategic bets as a nation in a way that the USA cannot do, since those bets are generally not 'fair' or may not favor certain powerful groups. For example, I think the special economic zones have been very successful, and such policies would just never fly in a western democracy. China can pursue national strategies that benefit china overall while dramatically hurting certain classes of corporations or people. That is possible, but much harder for a multi-party democracy where such actions could cost the next election.

But I am getting a bit off topic. I would agree that once the basics of distributed decision making are respected and stable, then it seems possible to adopt many socialist policies in relative safety.

happy to hear your thoughts if we see the same picture.

But you also seemed to claim some benefits for communism beyond benefits socialism. What are those? I doubt you will convince me here... still my aim is not to pin you down in order to win a debate. I just am just wondering what you are thinking.

--d