There was a limited amount of pseudo-private "workers collective" (OOUR) companies starting from the mid 70s all the way to the breakup. It was certainly not a market economy in any meaningful way. The entire economy was propped up by foreign loans, which was a cause of so much inflation that the currency had to be re-adjusted twice, starting from the late 60s.

[–] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is getting too semantic for my liking we would argue all day about whether Tito's efforts were a market economy or not. You acknowledge that market economies and multiple parties do exist in socialist countries though correct?

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The word "Socialism" is too broad to be useful here, it can refer to democratic socialism, which is the dominant political stance in Nordic countries, so yes, market economies and social programs can co-exist.

[–] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The nordic countries aren't socialism ffs. They are social democracy, capitalist states with welfare policies and a ruling class of bourgeoisie. This is political illiteracy. Adding welfare to capitalism does not make socialism, it makes ""friendly"" capitalism (backed by imperialism of the global south). Read Imperialism in the 21st Century, it is suicide fuel for socdems.

A real example of democratic socialism to discuss would be any of the states created by the Bolivarian revolutions. Venezuela under Chavez. Bolivia under MAS. Etc. Socialist states with a proletarian ruling class.