will socialism ever be a viable economic policy?
And what are the successes of capitalism?
Economic democracy only works in conjunction with political democracy. And countries that are already heavily-industrialized seem to have the best luck in its implementation.
The recent history of China would seem to prove your assertion to be incorrect.
It already is. It isn't simply whether an ideology is "viable." It is also important what the shared belief about that ideology is within a given society.
Think about the concept of currency. It is absolutely based on our shared belief about what currency means. Without the shared belief, it wouldn't be viable.
The same goes for monarchy. Or feudalism.
You saved me some typing.
Governments are generally some mix of socialism with other market driven processes such as capitalism. Socialism is already a viable economic policy, it works as safety nets such as welfare, social security, medicate, et al, which help protect citizens from the various maladies that are inherent in life.
If Elizabeth Warren's proposal to have the government go into the drug business, due to lack of competition for the production of generic drugs, that would be a socialistic economic endeavor to stop Big Pharma from extorting the piss out of the public.
What is SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA? Social democracies work.
It would be safe to call me a Democratic Socialist. This has nothing to do with any policies of the 40's and 50's or "Pacman capitalism" of today. This has to do with making things work in favor of our people.
Socialism as an economic system will never be viable unless people value equality much more than prosperity. Personally, the politics of envy that socialism addresses don't appeal to me. I like being rich, even though some other people are much richer.
Without a free market, capital and other goods cannot be accurately valued(von Mises 1922). And without a free market widely dispersed local knowledge and information will not be utilized by central planners, however well-intentioned they are(von Hayek 1945). This was well illustrated by the 1979 US gas lines caused by trying to allocate oil by central planning. What the free market does effortlessly, central planning cannot do at all.
Welfare state policies depend on the wealth generated by free market capitalism. Killing the golden goose that has made us all wealthy is not a good idea.
What do you mean "will be"? It always has been viable. Look at northern European countries, which have successfully practiced democratic socialism for decades. Don't let the liars and propagandists play you.
Sure - and you are talking about a small countries, small populations as compared to most, and VERY homogeneous, with only select parts of the society under socialists rule. The only exception to this is China, which for years has been Communist, and only recently opened up to a more open economy. So using them as proof the system works is a poor example. The rest of the examples mainly revolve around welfare systems. Plus, socailism is so flexible of a term, you really can't even describe a concrete example of how it's manifested - "RANGE of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production"
The northern European countries all have free market capitalist economies. You are confusing welfare state policies with socialism.