SCENARIO: Oregon decides to go fully democratic socialist and it works! This plays like a netflix series!

[geechiedan]

all the negative stats and demographics reversed and how would that effect the county politically?


If a single U.S. state successfully implemented a full Democratic Socialist model—reversing negative trends in poverty, health, and education—it would likely trigger a seismic shift in American federalism, effectively acting as a modern "laboratory of democracy."

Here is how that success would likely impact the country politically:

1. The "Proof of Concept" Gravitational Pull
The most immediate effect would be the death of the "it can't happen here" argument.

Migration Patterns: Success in one state (e.g., high wages, universal childcare, and lower cost of living) would likely cause a massive influx of young professionals and families. This "brain gain" would increase that state’s congressional representation and Electoral College votes over time.

The Policy Halo: Nearby states might feel immense pressure to adopt similar policies to prevent their own tax bases from migrating to the "successful" neighbor.

2. Federal Friction and "Preemption" Wars
A successful socialist state would inevitably clash with federal law, leading to intense legal battles:

Constitutional Challenges: The federal government or private corporations might sue to block state-level mandates (like universal healthcare or strict labor laws), citing the Commerce Clause or federal preemption.

Funding Standoffs: You would likely see a "fiscal decoupling." If the state achieves success through high local taxes and robust social services, it might demand more autonomy over how federal tax dollars are spent within its borders, leading to a new era of "States' Rights" rhetoric—but coming from the political left.

3. Realignment of the Major Parties
The success would force both the Democratic and Republican parties to undergo a radical identity crisis:

The Democratic Party: This would likely lead to an internal "civil war." The national party would have to decide whether to adopt the state’s model as the new national platform or remain centrist, potentially leading to a formal schism or the rise of a powerful "Socialist Caucus."

The Republican Party: The GOP would likely shift its messaging from "this is impossible" to "this is a threat to national liberty." They might focus on "Economic Protectionism" between states, attempting to pass federal laws that prevent other states from following suit.

4. The "Red State/Blue State" Economic Divergence
The U.S. might see a widening gap between two distinct economic models:

The Social Services Model: High tax, high services, high stability.

The Deregulated Model: Low tax, low services, high volatility.

If the Socialist state consistently outperforms the deregulated states in life expectancy and GDP growth, it could lead to a revaluation of the "American Dream"—moving it away from individual wealth accumulation and toward collective security.

5. Geopolitical Implications
If a U.S. state becomes a global leader in quality-of-life metrics under this model, it would alter U.S. foreign policy. It would be harder for the federal government to criticize the social safety nets of European or Scandinavian allies, and the U.S. might lose some of its "exceptionalist" standing as a purely capitalist beacon, instead becoming a hybrid superpower.

A "What-If" Perspective:
Imagine this state also manages to fund a massive breakthrough in clean energy or automation as part of its social mandate. In your view, would the rest of the country be more likely to embrace the model for the economic benefits, or reject it due to the cultural and political shift?

@Database Error @DC_Dude @OutlawR.O.C. @November 17 @ghoststrike @OutlawR.O.C.
@0utsyder @easy_b @playahaitian

 

[easy_b]

At some point especially if the economy goes to hell……

 

[OutlawR.O.C.]

all the negative stats and demographics reversed and how would that effect the county politically?


If a single U.S. state successfully implemented a full Democratic Socialist model—reversing negative trends in poverty, health, and education—it would likely trigger a seismic shift in American federalism, effectively acting as a modern "laboratory of democracy."

Here is how that success would likely impact the country politically:

1. The "Proof of Concept" Gravitational Pull
The most immediate effect would be the death of the "it can't happen here" argument.

Migration Patterns: Success in one state (e.g., high wages, universal childcare, and lower cost of living) would likely cause a massive influx of young professionals and families. This "brain gain" would increase that state’s congressional representation and Electoral College votes over time.

The Policy Halo: Nearby states might feel immense pressure to adopt similar policies to prevent their own tax bases from migrating to the "successful" neighbor.

2. Federal Friction and "Preemption" Wars
A successful socialist state would inevitably clash with federal law, leading to intense legal battles:

Constitutional Challenges: The federal government or private corporations might sue to block state-level mandates (like universal healthcare or strict labor laws), citing the Commerce Clause or federal preemption.

Funding Standoffs: You would likely see a "fiscal decoupling." If the state achieves success through high local taxes and robust social services, it might demand more autonomy over how federal tax dollars are spent within its borders, leading to a new era of "States' Rights" rhetoric—but coming from the political left.

3. Realignment of the Major Parties
The success would force both the Democratic and Republican parties to undergo a radical identity crisis:

The Democratic Party: This would likely lead to an internal "civil war." The national party would have to decide whether to adopt the state’s model as the new national platform or remain centrist, potentially leading to a formal schism or the rise of a powerful "Socialist Caucus."

The Republican Party: The GOP would likely shift its messaging from "this is impossible" to "this is a threat to national liberty." They might focus on "Economic Protectionism" between states, attempting to pass federal laws that prevent other states from following suit.

4. The "Red State/Blue State" Economic Divergence
The U.S. might see a widening gap between two distinct economic models:

The Social Services Model: High tax, high services, high stability.

The Deregulated Model: Low tax, low services, high volatility.

If the Socialist state consistently outperforms the deregulated states in life expectancy and GDP growth, it could lead to a revaluation of the "American Dream"—moving it away from individual wealth accumulation and toward collective security.

5. Geopolitical Implications
If a U.S. state becomes a global leader in quality-of-life metrics under this model, it would alter U.S. foreign policy. It would be harder for the federal government to criticize the social safety nets of European or Scandinavian allies, and the U.S. might lose some of its "exceptionalist" standing as a purely capitalist beacon, instead becoming a hybrid superpower.

A "What-If" Perspective:
Imagine this state also manages to fund a massive breakthrough in clean energy or automation as part of its social mandate. In your view, would the rest of the country be more likely to embrace the model for the economic benefits, or reject it due to the cultural and political shift?

@Database Error @DC_Dude @OutlawR.O.C. @November 17 @ghoststrike @OutlawR.O.C.
@0utsyder @easy_b @playahaitian

This would never occur.

No matter how successful it would still be viewed negatively by close to half of the country who wouldn't be able to see past their biases and the stigma of the words socialism/socialist which right wing "news" companies, podcasters, etc. would drill into their heads while downplaying or flat out denying any positives of the change.

That doesn't even factor in the lobbyists representing any companies negatively affected by the success of these policies who would line the pockets of politicians directly and via donations to political campaigns while trying to destroy anyone who doesn't get in line.

 

[geechiedan]

This would never occur.

No matter how successful it would still be viewed negatively by close to half of the country who wouldn't be able to see past their biases and the stigma of the words socialism/socialist which right wing "news" companies, podcasters, etc. would drill into their heads while downplaying or flat out denying any positives of the change.

That doesn't even factor in the lobbyists representing any companies negatively affected by the success of these policies who would line the pockets of politicians directly and via donations to political campaigns while trying to destroy anyone who doesn't get in line.

You’ve hit on a historically consistent pattern. When a political or economic system threatens the status quo—especially one as foundational as the U.S. market model—the reaction is rarely confined to polite debate in Congress. It often moves into the realm of asymmetric domestic pressure and institutional sabotage.

In this scenario, the "Socialist State" wouldn't just be a policy experiment; it would be viewed as an existential threat to the economic interests of the rest of the country.

1. Tactical Migration and "Resource Overloading"
As you noted, "bus-loading" is already a utilized political tactic. In this "what-if," it would be weaponized to break the state’s budget.

The Goal: To overwhelm the very social safety nets that make the state successful. By flooding the state with thousands of people requiring immediate housing, healthcare, and education, opponents would hope to see the "socialist" system buckle under the cost, leading to tax hikes that drive away the middle class.

The Response: The state would have to innovate rapidly—perhaps through state-run industrial housing or localized work-permit programs—to turn a "burden" into a productive part of their new economy.

2. The "Fifth Column" and Information Warfare
Infiltration and internal disruption would likely take several forms:

Labor Sabotage: If the state relies on powerful unions or state-owned enterprises, outside interests might fund "grassroots" movements to demand impossible concessions, aiming to trigger strikes that paralyze the state's infrastructure.

The "Brain Drain" Narrative: Even if the state is thriving, a massive misinformation campaign would likely flood social media with stories of "imminent collapse," "bread lines," or "rationed care." The goal is to create a psychological sense of failure that discourages investment and immigration.

3. Federal "Lawfare" and Regulatory Choking
The federal government has many "invisible" levers to pull:

The Federal Reserve & Banking: If the state tries to start a State Bank (to keep its capital within its own borders), the federal government could revoke its access to the Fed’s payment systems, effectively cutting the state off from the global financial grid.

Grant Withholding: The federal government provides billions for highways, disaster relief, and law enforcement. A hostile administration in D.C. could "find" regulatory violations to freeze those funds, forcing the state to choose between its social programs and basic infrastructure.

4. The Corporate "Capital Flight"
Major corporations wouldn't just leave; they might actively strip the state of assets on the way out.

Infrastructure Stripping: A company might close a vital factory and move the machinery out of state, not just for tax reasons, but as a "punishment" to the local workforce.

Counter-Incentives: Other states, backed by federal subsidies, might offer "Save Our Business" packages specifically designed to lure the socialist state’s most profitable industries away, attempting to hollow out its tax base.

5. The Risk of Secessionist Rhetoric
If the state survives these attacks and continues to prosper, the tension might reach a breaking point where the state feels it can no longer function as part of the Union, or the Union feels the state is a "contagion." This is where the "Laboratory of Democracy" becomes a Constitutional Crisis.

The Historical Mirror
This mirrors the "Red Scares" of the 20th century or the federal government's historical tension with radical labor movements like the IWW. The difference here is that the "threat" is a functioning, successful government with its own police force, tax authority, and popular mandate.

In a scenario where the federal government is actively trying to "starve" a successful state through these methods, do you think the state's citizens would become more radicalized in their support, or would the pressure eventually force them to vote for a return to the national "norm"?

 

[November 17]

A "What-If" Perspective:
Imagine this state also manages to fund a massive breakthrough in clean energy or automation as part of its social mandate. In your view, would the rest of the country be more likely to embrace the model for the economic benefits, or reject it due to the cultural and political shift?

I think younger people would embrace the model and I would use this article as an example:

Young Voters Power Mamdani Victory, Shape Key 2025 Elections

Authors: Alberto Medina, Sara Suzuki, Ruby Belle Booth Note: This analysis was updated on November 12 to reflect changes in exit poll data. Notably, we adjusted our estimate of youth voter turnout in the New York City mayoral race from 19% to 28%.

circle.tufts.edu

 

[playahaitian]

A "What-If" Perspective:
Imagine this state also manages to fund a massive breakthrough in clean energy or automation as part of its social mandate. In your view, would the rest of the country be more likely to embrace the model for the economic benefits, or reject it due to the cultural and political shift?

I think younger people would embrace the model and I would use this article as an example:

Young Voters Power Mamdani Victory, Shape Key 2025 Elections

Authors: Alberto Medina, Sara Suzuki, Ruby Belle Booth Note: This analysis was updated on November 12 to reflect changes in exit poll data. Notably, we adjusted our estimate of youth voter turnout in the New York City mayoral race from 19% to 28%.

circle.tufts.edu

There is a large active group of young people waiting ANXIOUSLY to vote in the upcoming elections for the first time.

The Mamdani win is VERY significant

And the old ass voting don't matter crowd is dying out and being ignored.

The pessimistic both sides are the same nothing changes crowd is also dying out.

These upcoming young voters are about push back on these incel maga dudes

 

[geechiedan]

In a scenario where the federal government is actively trying to "starve" a successful state through these methods, do you think the state's citizens would become more radicalized in their support, or would the pressure eventually force them to vote for a return to the national "norm"?

 

[Politic Negro]

@geechiedan can you find out the top ten states that this could be implemented quickly?

 

[0utsyder]

all the negative stats and demographics reversed and how would that effect the county politically?


If a single U.S. state successfully implemented a full Democratic Socialist model—reversing negative trends in poverty, health, and education—it would likely trigger a seismic shift in American federalism, effectively acting as a modern "laboratory of democracy."

Here is how that success would likely impact the country politically:

1. The "Proof of Concept" Gravitational Pull
The most immediate effect would be the death of the "it can't happen here" argument.

Migration Patterns: Success in one state (e.g., high wages, universal childcare, and lower cost of living) would likely cause a massive influx of young professionals and families. This "brain gain" would increase that state’s congressional representation and Electoral College votes over time.

The Policy Halo: Nearby states might feel immense pressure to adopt similar policies to prevent their own tax bases from migrating to the "successful" neighbor.

2. Federal Friction and "Preemption" Wars
A successful socialist state would inevitably clash with federal law, leading to intense legal battles:

Constitutional Challenges: The federal government or private corporations might sue to block state-level mandates (like universal healthcare or strict labor laws), citing the Commerce Clause or federal preemption.

Funding Standoffs: You would likely see a "fiscal decoupling." If the state achieves success through high local taxes and robust social services, it might demand more autonomy over how federal tax dollars are spent within its borders, leading to a new era of "States' Rights" rhetoric—but coming from the political left.

3. Realignment of the Major Parties
The success would force both the Democratic and Republican parties to undergo a radical identity crisis:

The Democratic Party: This would likely lead to an internal "civil war." The national party would have to decide whether to adopt the state’s model as the new national platform or remain centrist, potentially leading to a formal schism or the rise of a powerful "Socialist Caucus."

The Republican Party: The GOP would likely shift its messaging from "this is impossible" to "this is a threat to national liberty." They might focus on "Economic Protectionism" between states, attempting to pass federal laws that prevent other states from following suit.

4. The "Red State/Blue State" Economic Divergence
The U.S. might see a widening gap between two distinct economic models:

The Social Services Model: High tax, high services, high stability.

The Deregulated Model: Low tax, low services, high volatility.

If the Socialist state consistently outperforms the deregulated states in life expectancy and GDP growth, it could lead to a revaluation of the "American Dream"—moving it away from individual wealth accumulation and toward collective security.

5. Geopolitical Implications
If a U.S. state becomes a global leader in quality-of-life metrics under this model, it would alter U.S. foreign policy. It would be harder for the federal government to criticize the social safety nets of European or Scandinavian allies, and the U.S. might lose some of its "exceptionalist" standing as a purely capitalist beacon, instead becoming a hybrid superpower.

A "What-If" Perspective:
Imagine this state also manages to fund a massive breakthrough in clean energy or automation as part of its social mandate. In your view, would the rest of the country be more likely to embrace the model for the economic benefits, or reject it due to the cultural and political shift?

@Database Error @DC_Dude @OutlawR.O.C. @November 17 @ghoststrike @OutlawR.O.C.
@0utsyder @easy_b @playahaitian

Me looking at your long ass post:

Fine! I'll read your long ass post!

So you have this state that goes FULL Democratic Socialist. It is a lot harder to just create this What If...? scenario. Lets take the smallest state of Rhode Island. You have all these people plus the people coming there, but what are they gonna do when they get there? There is a reason why most companies put massive amounts of money behind anti-Democratic Socialism. People coming there will need jobs, are the companies that are currently there Democratic Socialists as well? Keep in mind this now "changes" the societal structures of the Have's and Have's Not. Keep in mind I firmly believe in that structure. Not in the sense Have's clean drinking water vs Have's No clean drinking water. But why not a Social-Capitalist system?

Universal Healthcare, but the hospitals/doctors that take part in the program get tax breaks. The healthcare is more preventative care and prescriptions with certain treatments covered as well.

Companies that come/stay and keep high and low level jobs in the state AND pay their share in taxes. Boards and owners get tax breaks, NOT the companies. These taxes that get collected from companies would be used to pay for these practices. Illinois gets shyt for toll roads, but those roads are NICE! Plus it also pays for the Tollway Assistance Service. You could do this where cost of living isn't like Cali or New York, but more like Tennessee maybe Virginia?

I don't think ANY one way of life works, but why not take all the great things from all of the different economic and political systems and create one that helps everybody? Well, the problem with that is all the Black people in Rhode Island get those benefits and we all know white folks won't let that happen.

 

[0utsyder]

@geechiedan can you find out the top ten states that this could be implemented quickly?

What would you base this off of? Population size? Willingness to make the implementation?

 

[Politic Negro]

What would you base this off of? Population size? Willingness to make the implementation?

Current Census data. Cost of living, current state debt, % of population earning x amount. Do they currently have a trifecta in government. Current migration. Top producing industries. I won't even consider willingness because you can sell anything to anyone if marketed correctly and each will see it differently.

 

[0utsyder]

Current Census data. Cost of living, current state debt, % of population earning x amount. Do they currently have a trifecta in government. Current migration. Top producing industries. I won't even consider willingness because you can sell anything to anyone if marketed correctly and each will see it differently.

What do you mean by current census data? I like West Virginia. Coal and natural gas industries that you could transition SOME to green energy production/manufacturing that would also align with it's growing manufacturing industry. Low state debt and cost of living 1.7million people in the state relatively small population.

 

[Politic Negro]

What do you mean by current census data? I like West Virginia. Coal and natural gas industries that you could transition SOME to green energy production/manufacturing that would also align with it's growing manufacturing industry. Low state debt and cost of living 1.7million people in the state relatively small population.

That was meant to be a comma and not a period because you can find cost of living data from the census. Also I'm not sure if West Virginia might be the easiest. God knows they need it. Oklahoma could be an alternative if the tribal nations are a significant stakeholder.

 

[0utsyder]

Current Census data. Cost of living, current state debt, % of population earning x amount. Do they currently have a trifecta in government. Current migration. Top producing industries. I won't even consider willingness because you can sell anything to anyone if marketed correctly and each will see it differently.

That was meant to be a comma and not a period because you can find cost of living data from the census. Also I'm not sure if West Virginia might be the easiest. God knows they need it. Oklahoma could be an alternative if the tribal nations are a significant stakeholder.

i mean you said that acceptance wasn't a consideration! What's the difference between Oklahoma and West Virginia? Both are down pretty bad.

If you're taking the rubric of acceptance then I would say Michigan. Really good elderly population to use to push my basic income and healthcare initiatives. Detroit and West Michigan with a lot of empty manufacturing plants to bring companies back to use. 5 BIG ASS lakes to utilize green energy, wind and hydro...don't know how they fair during winter months. But first thing I am doing is privatizing I-94! And only 5billion more debt than West Virginia.

 

[Politic Negro]

i mean you said that acceptance wasn't a consideration! What's the difference between Oklahoma and West Virginia? Both are down pretty bad.

If you're taking the rubric of acceptance then I would say Michigan. Really good elderly population to use to push my basic income and healthcare initiatives. Detroit and West Michigan with a lot of empty manufacturing plants to bring companies back to use. 5 BIG ASS lakes to utilize green energy, wind and hydro...don't know how they fair during winter months. But first thing I am doing is privatizing I-94! And only 5billion more debt than West Virginia.

Okay WV lack of diversity may make it easier to implement than OK. But I like Michigan over WV cause they are a healthier population. But why privatize I-94?

 

[tajshan]

This would never occur.

No matter how successful it would still be viewed negatively by close to half of the country who wouldn't be able to see past their biases and the stigma of the words socialism/socialist which right wing "news" companies, podcasters, etc. would drill into their heads while downplaying or flat out denying any positives of the change.

That doesn't even factor in the lobbyists representing any companies negatively affected by the success of these policies who would line the pockets of politicians directly and via donations to political campaigns while trying to destroy anyone who doesn't get in line.

It's funny how some don't realize the programs we have, or had, have some elements of socialism in it. School feedings, Social security, and the reasons most jobs can't make you work 7 days a week, 24 hours day are involved.

 

[D24OHA]

It's funny how some don't realize the programs we have, or had, have some elements of socialism in it. School feedings, Social security, and the reasons most jobs can't make you work 7 days a week, 24 hours day are involved.

Socialism isn't the enemy if done correctly.

The problem is we HAVE TO CAPITALISM, so pur "socialist" programs are bastardized versions of what they could / should be.

If medical care costs were so damn high compared to other countries we could have a decent universal healthcare system.

Mfkrs in the southwest routinely cross the border for dirt cheap dental care, prescriptions ...etc but noooooo we can't have that here

 

[totto]

At some point especially if the economy goes to hell……

Only way this would be given a chance is if white people completely lose wealth and tons of jobs.

Won't matter until then, they have a bougie man in minorities and the "left" so it's gonna in theory that won't go much further.

And Mandani isn't a full socialist, yes he's expanding the government and forcing them to cover more but he's closely monitored and can't step out of line.

 

[King Mob]

Aren't there already nations who have this system? Why do we always feel like the "wheel" needs to be reinvented (ie medical and legal cannibas), when all it needs is scaling for the demographic/ population? The only question that needs to be answered is how come we aren't doing that yet?? lobbying and businesses that operate on the national and international level: asking those the have the most to have a little less so people at the bottom can struggle less. Why do we continue to be tricked into thinking this a bad thing (at the polls and policies) regardless of our political and philosophical affiliations?

 

[0utsyder]

Mfkrs in the southwest routinely cross the border for dirt cheap dental care, prescriptions ...etc but noooooo we can't have that here

And those same folks voted for Trump!!!

 

[D24OHA]

And those same folks voted for Trump!!!

Constantly voting against their best interests...... makes no damn sense

 

[geechiedan]

@geechiedan can you find out the top ten states that this could be implemented quickly?

Implementing a full democratic socialist model in the U.S. wouldn't happen everywhere at once. It would likely start in states with a specific "DNA"—high union density, a history of progressive legislation, and the economic self-sufficiency to withstand federal pressure.

Based on current political infrastructure, legislative trends, and labor strength in 2026, here are the top 10 states where this model could realistically take root:

1. Vermont
Vermont is the "Patient Zero" for this model. It is the only state with a viable third party, the Vermont Progressive Party, which holds seats in the legislature and often pulls the Democratic majority to the left.

The Edge: A long tradition of town-hall democracy and high civic engagement makes collective ownership more culturally acceptable here than anywhere else.

2. New York
With one of the highest union densities in the country and a massive, diverse economy, New York has the "muscle" to go socialist.

The Edge: The New York Health Act (single-payer) has been a looming possibility for years. The state also has a significant caucus of openly democratic socialist legislators who have already begun pushing for "public power" (state-owned renewable energy).

3. California
California functions like its own nation-state. If it went democratic socialist, it would be the world’s 5th or 6th largest socialist economy.

The Edge: In 2026, California is exploring wealth taxes and has a massive state-funded social safety net. Its ability to create "public options" for everything from housing to prescription drugs (like its CalRx initiative) provides a ready-made blueprint.

4. Oregon
Oregon has a history of radical political experimentation, including pioneering some of the country's most robust environmental and labor protections.

The Edge: The state has frequently studied single-payer healthcare and has a strong "public bank" movement aimed at keeping state capital out of Wall Street and in local communities.

5. Washington
Washington has no state income tax (currently), but it has a high "high-wage" economy and a powerful labor movement centered in the tech and aerospace sectors.

The Edge: The state has already implemented a public long-term care insurance program (WA Cares), proving its residents are willing to pay into collective pools for social security.

6. Massachusetts
Massachusetts combines high levels of public welfare spending with world-class education and healthcare infrastructure.

The Edge: It was the first to implement near-universal healthcare (the "Romneycare" precursor to the ACA). Current 2026 legislative sessions have seen renewed interest in public banking to fund affordable housing.

7. Illinois
Illinois, specifically Chicago, is a historic hub for organized labor. The state has moved rapidly toward progressive taxation and expanded worker protections.

The Edge: Illinois has recently debated the creation of a State Bank to promote local agriculture and industry, mirroring the successful Bank of North Dakota model but with a socialist mission.

8. Minnesota
Minnesota’s "Democratic-Farmer-Labor" (DFL) party has a unique history of blending rural populism with urban progressivism.

The Edge: The state recently passed a "North Star Act" style agenda, including universal school meals and paid family leave, demonstrating a high "proof of concept" for state-funded social services.

9. New Jersey
New Jersey has a very high union membership rate and a state government that has recently created a Social Impact Investment Fund—a precursor to a public bank.

The Edge: Its high population density makes universal services (like transit and healthcare) more efficient to implement than in sprawling western states.

10. Colorado
While historically more "purple," Colorado has shifted into a progressive stronghold with a focus on labor rights and environmental "public goods."

The Edge: Its "Colorado Option" for healthcare is one of the most advanced state-level attempts to compete with private insurers, creating a logical stepping stone to a full socialist model.

The "Regional Bloc" Strategy
If these states were to implement this model, they wouldn't do it in isolation. You would likely see the formation of Regional Compacts:

The West Coast Bloc: (CA, OR, WA) pooling resources for a regional power grid and healthcare exchange.

The Northeast Corridor: (NY, MA, VT, NJ) creating a unified high-speed rail and labor market.

By forming these blocs, these states could effectively "nullify" federal opposition through sheer economic weight, making it nearly impossible for the federal government to "starve" them out without crashing the national economy.

Do you think the "bus-loading" tactics you mentioned would be enough to break a state as large as California, or is that a strategy that only works against smaller, less wealthy states?


PICK A STATE!

 

[geechiedan]

Aren't there already nations who have this system? Why do we always feel like the "wheel" needs to be reinvented (ie medical and legal cannibas), when all it needs is scaling for the demographic/ population? The only question that needs to be answered is how come we aren't doing that yet?? lobbying and businesses that operate on the national and international level: asking those the have the most to have a little less so people at the bottom can struggle less. Why do we continue to be tricked into thinking this a bad thing (at the polls and policies) regardless of our political and philosophical affiliations?

What is the most successful socialist country today?

The answer depends entirely on how you define "socialist." In the current global landscape of 2026, the title of "most successful" is usually split between two very different models: the Marxist-Leninist states and the Nordic Model social democracies.

1. The Marxist-Leninist Model (State Socialism)
If you define success by economic growth and poverty reduction under a one-party system, Vietnam and China are the leading contenders.

Vietnam: As of 2026, Vietnam is projected to lead the world in GDP per capita growth. Its "Doi Moi" reforms successfully blended a socialist-oriented market economy with state control, lifting millions out of poverty and making it a global manufacturing powerhouse.

China: While it describes itself as "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," it is the world’s second-largest economy. Its success is measured by massive infrastructure development and its emergence as a global leader in green technology and AI, though critics argue it has moved significantly toward state-directed capitalism.

2. The Social Democratic Model (The "Nordic Model")
Many people use "socialist" to describe countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. While these are technically capitalist market economies, they are often cited as the most successful "socialist-leaning" nations due to their high quality of life.

Norway: Often ranked #1 in the world for human development, Norway uses its state-owned oil wealth (via the Government Pension Fund Global) to fund a massive social safety net, free education, and universal healthcare.

Denmark & Finland: These countries consistently top the World Happiness Report and global equality indices. They prioritize high taxes and high levels of social spending while maintaining some of the world's "freest" markets for business.

Constitutional Socialist States: Only four countries (China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos) have communist-inspired constitutions today.

Democratic Socialists: Countries like Brazil or Portugal have socialist parties in power or socialist references in their constitutions but operate within a democratic, capitalist framework.

In short: If "success" means explosive growth, it's Vietnam. If "success" means human well-being and stability, it's Norway or Finland.

Since you enjoy exploring "what-if" scenarios, do you think a society's success should be measured more by its technological advancement or by the baseline happiness of its citizens?

I went with the Nordic model for the scenario...

 

[Day_Carver]

What is the most successful socialist country today?

The answer depends entirely on how you define "socialist." In the current global landscape of 2026, the title of "most successful" is usually split between two very different models: the Marxist-Leninist states and the Nordic Model social democracies.

1. The Marxist-Leninist Model (State Socialism)
If you define success by economic growth and poverty reduction under a one-party system, Vietnam and China are the leading contenders.

Vietnam: As of 2026, Vietnam is projected to lead the world in GDP per capita growth. Its "Doi Moi" reforms successfully blended a socialist-oriented market economy with state control, lifting millions out of poverty and making it a global manufacturing powerhouse.

China: While it describes itself as "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," it is the world’s second-largest economy. Its success is measured by massive infrastructure development and its emergence as a global leader in green technology and AI, though critics argue it has moved significantly toward state-directed capitalism.

2. The Social Democratic Model (The "Nordic Model")
Many people use "socialist" to describe countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. While these are technically capitalist market economies, they are often cited as the most successful "socialist-leaning" nations due to their high quality of life.

Norway: Often ranked #1 in the world for human development, Norway uses its state-owned oil wealth (via the Government Pension Fund Global) to fund a massive social safety net, free education, and universal healthcare.

Denmark & Finland: These countries consistently top the World Happiness Report and global equality indices. They prioritize high taxes and high levels of social spending while maintaining some of the world's "freest" markets for business.

Constitutional Socialist States: Only four countries (China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos) have communist-inspired constitutions today.

Democratic Socialists: Countries like Brazil or Portugal have socialist parties in power or socialist references in their constitutions but operate within a democratic, capitalist framework.

In short: If "success" means explosive growth, it's Vietnam. If "success" means human well-being and stability, it's Norway or Finland.

Since you enjoy exploring "what-if" scenarios, do you think a society's success should be measured more by its technological advancement or by the baseline happiness of its citizens?

I went with the Nordic model for the scenario...

America is a socialist country; its just a socialist country mainly for corporations and also for the rich! America has always been that way but it did help white people more than any others at one point; now its all about corporations and rich...
@playahaitian

 

[Pack Rat]

 

[Day_Carver]

Dam thats a very good ass point that was made! man fuck the tax rate, what is the life rate; ima start using that...
@playahaitian

 

[geechiedan]

Dam thats a very good ass point that was made! man fuck the tax rate, what is the life rate; ima start using that...
@playahaitian

. The Social Democratic Model (The "Nordic Model")
Many people use "socialist" to describe countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. While these are technically capitalist market economies, they are often cited as the most successful "socialist-leaning" nations due to their high quality of life.

Norway: Often ranked #1 in the world for human development, Norway uses its state-owned oil wealth (via the Government Pension Fund Global) to fund a massive social safety net, free education, and universal healthcare.

Denmark & Finland: These countries consistently top the World Happiness Report and global equality indices. They prioritize high taxes and high levels of social spending while maintaining some of the world's "freest" markets for business.


its fucked up that if this was introduced in a US state..america would go out of its way to destroy it.

 

[Day_Carver]

. The Social Democratic Model (The "Nordic Model")
Many people use "socialist" to describe countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. While these are technically capitalist market economies, they are often cited as the most successful "socialist-leaning" nations due to their high quality of life.

Norway: Often ranked #1 in the world for human development, Norway uses its state-owned oil wealth (via the Government Pension Fund Global) to fund a massive social safety net, free education, and universal healthcare.

Denmark & Finland: These countries consistently top the World Happiness Report and global equality indices. They prioritize high taxes and high levels of social spending while maintaining some of the world's "freest" markets for business.


its fucked up that if this was introduced in a US state..america would go out of its way to destroy it.

Well yea because the government in America is run/controlled by corporations and the rich; and they aint having none of this shit...

 

[King Mob]

What is the most successful socialist country today?

The answer depends entirely on how you define "socialist." In the current global landscape of 2026, the title of "most successful" is usually split between two very different models: the Marxist-Leninist states and the Nordic Model social democracies.

1. The Marxist-Leninist Model (State Socialism)
If you define success by economic growth and poverty reduction under a one-party system, Vietnam and China are the leading contenders.

Vietnam: As of 2026, Vietnam is projected to lead the world in GDP per capita growth. Its "Doi Moi" reforms successfully blended a socialist-oriented market economy with state control, lifting millions out of poverty and making it a global manufacturing powerhouse.

China: While it describes itself as "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," it is the world’s second-largest economy. Its success is measured by massive infrastructure development and its emergence as a global leader in green technology and AI, though critics argue it has moved significantly toward state-directed capitalism.

2. The Social Democratic Model (The "Nordic Model")
Many people use "socialist" to describe countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. While these are technically capitalist market economies, they are often cited as the most successful "socialist-leaning" nations due to their high quality of life.

Norway: Often ranked #1 in the world for human development, Norway uses its state-owned oil wealth (via the Government Pension Fund Global) to fund a massive social safety net, free education, and universal healthcare.

Denmark & Finland: These countries consistently top the World Happiness Report and global equality indices. They prioritize high taxes and high levels of social spending while maintaining some of the world's "freest" markets for business.

Constitutional Socialist States: Only four countries (China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos) have communist-inspired constitutions today.

Democratic Socialists: Countries like Brazil or Portugal have socialist parties in power or socialist references in their constitutions but operate within a democratic, capitalist framework.

In short: If "success" means explosive growth, it's Vietnam. If "success" means human well-being and stability, it's Norway or Finland.

Since you enjoy exploring "what-if" scenarios, do you think a society's success should be measured more by its technological advancement or by the baseline happiness of its citizens?

I went with the Nordic model for the scenario...

How can technological advancement be a metric when it's not something that's happening in a vacuum? So take South Korea (if geopolitical nation = society) because they're making the chips that run everything, the knowledge and materials needed for them to continue to do what they do don't only come from in their borders. So I can only say we succeed(ed) if we don't wipe ourselves off the planet (micro vs macro). I think "what-ifs"/opinions are great for stuff like this because the who would be the expert otherwise: someone who's lived or studied these economic/political developments. WHAT IF bartering had remained humanities economic system? Might we still have the same level of tech/ advancement without wars and imperialism?? It's a hard conversation to speculate about.

 

[geechiedan]

How can technological advancement be a metric when it's not something that's happening in a vacuum? So take South Korea (if geopolitical nation = society) because they're making the chips that run everything, the knowledge and materials needed for them to continue to do what they do don't only come from in their borders. So I can only say we succeed(ed) if we don't wipe ourselves off the planet (micro vs macro). I think "what-ifs"/opinions are great for stuff like this because the who would be the expert otherwise: someone who's lived or studied these economic/political developments. WHAT IF bartering had remained humanities economic system? Might we still have the same level of tech/ advancement without wars and imperialism?? It's a hard conversation to have a speculate about.

Already a thread on this type of topic

what-has-benefitted-mankind-more-collaboration-or-competition

 

[tajshan]

Socialism isn't the enemy if done correctly.

The problem is we HAVE TO CAPITALISM, so pur "socialist" programs are bastardized versions of what they could / should be.

If medical care costs were so damn high compared to other countries we could have a decent universal healthcare system.

Mfkrs in the southwest routinely cross the border for dirt cheap dental care, prescriptions ...etc but noooooo we can't have that here

I've said the same about Capitalism. I likened it to a game where workers and businesses are on opposing teams with the government being the referee. The problem is now - the ref is on TAKE.

 

[geechiedan]

I've said the same about Capitalism. I likened it to a game where workers and businesses are on opposing teams with the government being the referee. The problem is now - the ref is on TAKE.

Now????

 

[geechiedan]

BUT WAIT...THE PLOT THICKENS.... I chose Oregon as the test state....


If Oregon survived all that, it would have to be through a level of local solidarity that we haven't seen in the U.S. in a long time. Do you think a single state's population could remain unified enough to withstand that kind of national pressure?

If the local industries stayed because they saw the positive outcomes it would be very interesting. What are ways to redirect border dumping?

If Oregon’s industries stayed—essentially betting that a healthy, educated, and stable workforce is more valuable than a low tax rate—the state would be the most successful "anomaly" in modern history. However, the "Border Dumping" problem (other states sending their most vulnerable citizens to strain Oregon's resources) would be their greatest logistical threat.

Since the Right to Travel and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution generally prevent states from closing their borders or treating new residents as "second-class citizens," Oregon would have to get creative.

Here is how they might redirect or mitigate border dumping:

1. The "Services-to-Labor" Integration Model
Instead of offering "passive" benefits (like unconditional cash transfers), Oregon could tie its social democratic benefits to participation in the state’s developmental ecosystem.

The Strategy: Benefits like high-quality housing or advanced healthcare could be structured as part of a "State Transition Program."

The Redirect: Newcomers are immediately enrolled in job training, community service, or educational tracks. States trying to "dump" people would find they aren't sending them to a "handout," but to a rigorous reintegration system that turns those individuals into productive Oregonian taxpayers, effectively "backfiring" on the sending state.

2. Litigation: "The Cost-Recovery" Lawsuits
Oregon could take a page out of the playbook used against opioid manufacturers.

The Strategy: If Oregon can prove a systematic effort by another state (e.g., Idaho or Nevada) to bus individuals across state lines without their consent or under false pretenses, Oregon could sue for damages.

The Redirect: Oregon could seek to recover the "lifetime cost of care" for every individual dumped. By making border dumping a massive legal and financial liability for the sending state, the practice would likely stop.

3. Federal "Compact" Agreements
Oregon could form a Regional Social Solidarity Compact with like-minded neighbors (like Washington or California).

The Strategy: These states would agree to share the burden and standardize benefits.

The Redirect: If an individual is moved from a "Red State" to the "Blue Bloc," they are entered into a shared database. The states then collectively lobby the federal government to deduct the cost of that person's care from the sending state’s federal block grants and redistribute it to the receiving state.

4. Voucherizing the Benefit (The "Residency Tier" Approach)
While you can't block people from moving, you can theoretically phase in certain "premium" benefits.

The Strategy: Basic human rights (emergency Room care, shelter, food) remain universal. However, "Nordic-plus" benefits (free university tuition, specialized elective surgeries, high-tier parental leave) might require a 3-year residency or a specific amount of "State Contribution" (taxes or volunteer hours).

The Redirect: This disincentivizes people from moving only for the immediate payout, while still remaining a magnet for people who want to settle and contribute long-term.

The Message: "Thank you, [State], for sending us your people. Our superior education and healthcare systems are turning them into the engineers and nurses that your companies are now trying to hire back."

The Result: By framing "dumping" as a "Brain Drain" where the sending state loses potential human capital, Oregon changes the psychology of the conflict from a burden to a theft of talent.

If Oregon successfully integrated "dumped" populations into its booming economy, the "Red State" strategy would flip from "getting rid of a problem" to "accidentally fueling their rival's growth."

Do you think the federal government would step in to mediate these "interstate population wars," or would they let the states fight it out in the courts?

@Database Error @DC_Dude @OutlawR.O.C. @November 17 @ghoststrike @OutlawR.O.C.
@0utsyder @easy_b @playahaitian

 

[geechiedan]

 

[slewdem100]

Any US state that went that route would be treated like any country that goes that route except maybe even worse because the potential success of that state would be seen as an existential threat to the system

Money would be sent to opponents of the state's new direction, some version of sanctions (officially or unofficially) would be applied, unusually competitive bids for that state's businesses from other states would suddenly appear, propaganda would be through the roof...and if all that fails, outright federal intervention and probably civil war to bring them in line

That state could only succeed if like minded individuals in other states started making a ruckus within their own state