In good faith, I'll offer my response, inadequate as I know it'll be.
As you may fear, a lot depends on what is meant by 'socialism', 'socialist principles' and what is meant by 'success'.
It could be said that there has been no successful Socialist state built on 'socialist principles' - as the states called 'socialist' have mostly all been State Socialism, imposed on the populace from above. true socialist principles suggest that socialism will arise when the people at the grass roots (all of the people not simply the managers of a State) agree that the fruits of their toil should be shared so that no one is left behind or suffering. Imposing a system seldom succeeds.
Although, USSR and Venezuela tried their best - but it could be argued there, that having to compete against the overbearing forces of an already entrenched world of Capitalism (forgetting the USSR struggles against Fascism…) was already to big a task for a nascent state. Venezuela was a one-trick pony that didn't follow the Scandi model and diversify/store up its oil wealth for rainier days.
The Russian Empire was a biggie, a hand down from the Czars, facing unimaginable transformation from peasantry to a space power and always under attack by established nations. It failed. But many countries and all empires do eventually fail - so why anyone would think that operating with a socialist outlook should be the sole reason for not being "a successful state" is a strangely selective agenda with which to start. Look at the bigger picture and there are few if any successful states- of any political shade.
China could be our best example for a successful socialist state. It IS very successful. It has an amazingly long history - millenia! - of being innovative and successful in many areas. I am not a fan of its totalitarianism, but the current system (labelled socialist by right wing idiots) does produce a lot of benefits for millions of its people - and has been able too buy many of the top good bits of western states. Is that success? Does that make Capitalist countries look like relative failures.
Bored yet? It's the only way I can answer... it IS a huge question. I am not sure why you wanted MY answer. Google could have helped. Luckily the usual forum trash won't have read more than two sentences.
(a wee emoji to placate them)
You could say that the UK (and many others in Europe) are successful socialist states in that even the right wing Tory f**kpigs as some people call them - claims to believe in our National Health System and many aspects of community welfare - even though they are regularly guilty of underfunding them. It is an ethos that prevails in many European countries. Righting all wrongs, levelling out all inequalities, doing the right thing by others (almost Christian....) seems to be the European commonweal.
You could say that Norway and other Scandinavian countries are pretty close to it - heading that way...
Canadians make a fair claim that their systems are based on socialism (and Christianity.... again.) It is successful. For now. Living cheek by jowl with its Ugly Sister...
Cuba? Everyone has enough to eat, everyone has education and equal opportunity - though opportunity might not be huge from our pov. Every Cuban can see, across the water, the obscene wealth of westerners and they'll all know that USA has a huge underclass which is over-represented in US prisons - the USA - NOT built on 'socialist principles' - is that a capitalist success story for a vast number of its inhabitants?.
My simple answer I suppose would be that we're on our way to living under the benign canopy of 'socialist principles'. That is all.
Capitalism has been a useful phase which has helped lift a lot of people throughout the world out of starvation and disease and poverty and yet, and yet... the entities, the companies, the stockholders, hedge funds that now run our economies are no longer simple humans but machines to extract profit without limits and with no recourse to social constraints. No need to reinvest profits into the societies from which it has been extracted...
But Capitalism as a phase is not the be-all and end-all of history. It has been a useful phase. We will move on.
Current unrestricted Capitalism is doing humanity less and less good turns. I've always appreciated good ole USA Antitrust laws. I think they have been slow in getting to grips with www exploitation and monopolising of markets, but they'll get there - for the good of the consumer.
Have there ever been any successful Capitalist countries? Yes, for a while, in their time. and it is/would be the same for socialist states. All things must pass.
I aspire to a socialist state as I have more than enough to enjoy life with. I am not greedy and I didn't get my life all on my own - society and socialism were key in my growth and education, health and welfare -of me and my family. I wish that basic bringing up for myriad others. A well-organised state should care for all its members. It is no unimaginable aspiration for any decent member of the human race to have a decent shot at life.
I am optimistic. You may suggest far too optimistic?
Every human, every scientist takes the same rashly optimistic steps daily, to find out what works, what doesn't, what is the best way forward. Wherever there are flaws (and there are many) in our society I would like them repaired. Despite a current back step or two, I believe in a better future for most people. I don't think that will come from people who do not want to share the fruits that their place of birth has bought them. I want change for the good of ALL, because none of us are innately better than everyone else.
I would deny that 'socialist principles' robs anyone of individuality. At least no more than living under any other structure of government/community that exists on this planet.
I would be happy to live in a state built on 'socialist principles'.
(then again - what IS socialism? I tried.. D- )
Exactly. People constantly claim that politicians don’t answer questions, but Neil is guilty of asking questions and then not allowing the interviewee to finish answering, particularly if its looking like a good answer and not suiting his confrontational agenda. Neil’s interviews generally end up achieving the square root of hee haw.
I took this picture today of part of the old RAI hospital displaying yet again, another example of how our architectural heritage is being left to ruin and possible arson. Hopefully, if any of our Buddie supporting councillors/architectural/planning officials are reading this perhaps they could investigate before its too late.