Name me one socialist state in history, please.
>>74189443
USSR
>>74189979
Let's see, in USSR, the state owned the means of production, wich is the definition of... State capitalism.
>>74189443
>Name me one socialist state in history
United states of america
>>74190201
United states of America is capitalist. A market economy with a rather small regulatory weight. Not socialist by any deggre.
Socialism hate thread? Socialism hate thread.
>>74190480
define socialism
>>74190411
Wrong. It's not pure unadulterated capitalism at all. People are taxed to through the nose to pay for other people.
>>74190411
>Not socialist by any deegre.
20% of the population lives with goverment money
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/aid-medicaid-food-stamps-census-bureau/2015/07/08/id/654041/
Successful or failed?
>>74190098
t. Trotsky
>>74190686
> It's not pure unadulterated capitalism at all
Market interfeence doesn't make it not capitalism. It's stops being capitalism when one does not have private property, when one cannot accumulate capital, and when the means of production are in private hands.
If it has state interference is of no consequence
>>74190918
Nah man is da fault of evil whitey fo colonialism n sheeit
>>74190869
You can meme all you want, but it doesn't change facts.
>>74190918
Tourism is the trade of colonies.
And a economy cannot function on one resource.
Also Venezuela is not socialism by any standard. The means of production are in capitalists hands and in state hands, ergo a mixed economy. What changes in Venezuela to USA, for example, is the deggre of state intervention and the effectiveness of said intervention.
>>74191051
State interference is a huge part of it.
It's the same way you nit pick how some countries aren't socialist.
>>74189443
Nazi Germany
Venezuela
USSR
>>74189717
The number of Cuban refugees is actually relatively small. Look at areas considered bastions of anti leftism in the Cold War. Haiti and El Salvador, for example, have or have had MUCH larger exoduses. Cuban citizens also have relatively good living conditions compared to those countries.
>>74191273
doesn't their capitalist neighbor have actually no resources at all?
>>74191273
>inb4 flood of LE NO TROO SGOTSMAN EBIN XDDDDD
>>74190574
The bastard child of communism that seems to think it could be something some day, but all it does is sit at home with all the countries that were born from it and collect government checks and handouts
Piece of shit system with no merit other than making people dependent on goverment for better and inevitably worse.
>>74191705
im sorry, just flying by, but socialism is a child of communism how
>>74189443
>Mongoloid noises.
Shame, OP. Shame.
>>74191273
You are like these Libertarians who say that the US isn't a capitalist country.To a certain degree you are right but only if you narrow the definition so much that it can't be applied on any realistic situation.
Germany circa 1933 to 1945 before we liberated them.
>>74189443
Sweden
>>74191334
But state interference is not a deggre of wether one state is socialist or not. state interference determines wether a economy is anarcho capitalist or state capitalism, or something inbetwen.
>>74191458
All of them were state capitalist, or mixed economies with a larget state intervention. None of them were socialistic.
>>74191544
Venezuela is capitalistic
>>74191705
>Piece of shit system with no merit other than making people dependent on goverment for better and inevitably worse.
That is happening in our capitalistic systems bro.
>>74191964
>You are like these Libertarians who say that the US isn't a capitalist country.
But it is.
>>74192374
No they were not
>>74192652
mixed economy
>>74189717
>Cuban government forces you to work
B-but I want to be a neet
I know!
I'll leave to the US were I can claim werfare and vote Rubotto
>>74190201
National Socialist Germany
>>74193680
You're just mad that socialism only works in a homogeneous white society. Go do something productive like bang an adufe.
>>74190729
my argument is so solid noone have replied
>>74193955
How is life in costa rica
>>74194016
Not socialist . The left wing of the party left with Strasser. They were capitalistic, with a huge gov intervention.
>>74194077
But socialism as never been tried. That homogenous population is a meme.
>>74194163
I didn't even watch your post, i will give you a (You)
>>74190729
That is not socialism. Welfare!=Socialsim
>>74194353
That "socialism has never been tried" meme is a meme that needs to die.
>>74193680
Not in it's broadest definition: "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit"
Goverments can take you into prison an thus stealing your body which is a form of means of production.
Also: "Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets"
You do not have a perfect competitive market due to goverment regulation (for example the pharmaceutical market) or volunatry exchange because of monopolies enforced by the goverment.
>>74194521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[7]
>Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9]
Name me one system with this.
Hey look is the tripfag portuguese moron who makes us all look bad. How are you doing atrasado?
How about you start the thread by defining "socialist" instead of doing mental gymnastics like always?
>unironically posting in portuguese leftypol thread
What am I doing.
>>74193424
So you're saying a capitalist country in which the state forces everyone to pay 100% of income in taxes is still capitalist? Come on.
Of course state interference is a huge factor. If we're comparing oranges and apples in terms of labels. The US has always been a republic, not a democracy or a capitalistic state.
You're willing to state that there are varying degrees of capitalistic economies/states but won't admit there are varying degrees of socialistic states/economies? Bullshit.
>>74190098
>USSR
>Union of Soviet <<<SOCIALIST>>> Republics
>not socialist
Jesus I knew pinkos were retarded but this is on a new level
Denmark.
Git gud.
>>74194872
>public ownership
How is ownership by the state not public ownership? You're thinking of anarcho-socialism. The communist states we've seen in history are all examples of socialism. Just because you have a warped definition of what the state is doesn't mean they weren't socialist nations.
>>74189443
Does social democracy count?
>>74194872
if it's so good then why hasn't anyone tried it
>>74190411
Venezuela is socialist, and they're doing fantastic. There's definitely not a complete societal breakdown happening.
>>74194849
>Not in it's broadest definition
In what way does USA is not capitalist?
>Goverments can take you into prison an thus stealing your body which is a form of means of production.
Ence why USA is a mixed economy. But mixed economies are still capitalistic.´
>You do not have a perfect competitive market due to goverment regulation (for example the pharmaceutical market) or volunatry exchange because of monopolies enforced by the goverment.
See above
>>74194967
Are you the same one that always post in my thread?
Como vai a vida?
>>74194968
>So you're saying a capitalist country in which the state forces everyone to pay 100% of income in taxes is still capitalist? Come on.
Probably not, because it wouldn't allow for capital accumulation, nor private ownership. But i don't know of any system in that existed.
>Of course state interference is a huge factor.
Not denying it. But it's got nothing to do with socialism
>but won't admit there are varying degrees of socialistic states/economies?
like?
>>74195006
Are you retard? Just because i put a sticker on my forehead that says god, that means you will worship me?
USSR was a state capitalism economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
>The economy of the Soviet Union was based on a system of state ownership of the means of production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
>State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e., for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises
>>74191273
>no true scotsman
Oh fuck off already. Until someone manages to do it, nothing will be socialism in your eyes.
>>74195048
Mixed economy, bro.
>>74195252
>How is ownership by the state not public ownership?
Do you own the means of production? Do you have a saying?
>The communist states
oxymoron
>Just because you have a warped definition of what the state is doesn't mean they weren't socialist nations.
You've yet to name me a socialist state All i've seen is mixed economies and state capitalistism
>>74195783
>USA
>a mixed economy
Seriously?
Don't they basically give an unemployed guy some pity money for a few months and stop caring afterwards?
>>74195783
>Wikipedia as a source
>>74195783
>Ence why USA is a mixed economy. But mixed economies are still capitalistic.´
We mix a dog with a cat. The creature isn't a a dog cat mix no it is still a dog....
>>74195487
>The rich will willingly give the means of production
>>74195459
It's not socialism.
>>74195551
Venezuela is not socialist. The state owns the means of production, and so do privates. That is capitalism.
>>74190918
Yeah, because when they went socialist, all the forests burned to the ground, the climate went to shit, and the oil evaporated.
>>74196283
>having difficulties fighting 1% of the population
laughable
>>74196080
So what is USA then?
>>74196081
point your critics, then.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
https://www.quora.com/How-reliable-is-Wikipedia-as-a-source-of-information-and-why
I know it's a little bad to point a wiki article as a proof of wiki reliability, but it contains numerous studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
>>74196518
>So what is USA then?
Cruel?
>>74194353
>Can't reply to his post stating the facts
>I know! I'll reply to his post that points out the post with the facts.
You fucking mong. State ownership is literally socialism. It's understood that through elections the populace elects how it works. This of course doesn't apply to non democracies.
Yugoslavia
>>74195954
Yes retard, representative say is still say.
>>74196278
No, we introduce cloths to a naked person. It's not like capitalism is possible withut a state. the existence of state intervention does not invalidate a system from being capitalistic.
>>74196456
Not when the rest 90% of population is so imensely brainwashed, and willingly goes out and fight for some rich fags.
>>74195783
> mixed economy with with capitalist aspects is still capitalist
> that mixed economy with socialist aspects? not socialist! nuh-uh!
>>74196708
then why don't you kill yourself if you have no chance
>>74196609
what post are you refering to?
>>74196670
>State ownership is literally socialism
Source?
And there is no need to insult. In real arguments, once you start to insult, you automatically lost.
>>74196671
Not socialistic. State capitalism, i think.
>>74196681
What do you mean?
>>74190098
Only after the revolution resulted in production declines of 90% and they needed at least some freedom to prevent the country from sliding into oblivion.
>>74196710
>socialist aspects
What social aspects?
>>74196814
>pic related
>>74195881
>LE NO TROO SGOTSMAN XDDD
Every. Fucking. Time.
>>74196708
>It's not like capitalism is possible withut a state.
Anarcho-capitalists would beg to differ.
Besides you could use your own argument against yourself: It's not like socialism is possible without a state, which will consist of egoistic individuals who will use their power for their own benefit.
>>74196518
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, from your average joe to the most fanatic tankie, thus the reputation for being biased. When a neo-nazi tries to spin his favourite skinhead in a positive light, he's shud down by a fucking mound of editors. when a tankies tries to edit Stalin's wiki page or whatnot, ther'es only a few people that edit back
the mods are pussies too
>NEVEEEEER TRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIED
>>74196941
No, socialism. There was social ownership. The name was socialistic federative republic of yugoslavia
There is nothing that is simultaneously more hilarious and pathetic than watching you lefty/pol/ nerds stumble over yourselves to prove you're not the same as SJWs and any other assorted liberals.
>>74197041
I'm not here to discuss the effectiveness of state capitalistic USSR. But my personal view is that it turned Russia empire into a superpower.
>>74197144
>Anarcho-capitalists would beg to differ.
Anarcho capitalism is a retarded concept. And unacheivable.
>It's not like socialism is possible without a state
True
>which will consist of egoistic individuals who will use their power for their own benefit.
Unlike our capitalistic gov?
>>74189443
The fat man in the blue is a Zionist Corporation
>>74197262
>Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, from your average joe to the most fanatic tankie, thus the reputation for being biased.
>HURR DURR, i once edited Hitler name to fggot, so wikipedia is dumb, xDD
You are free to keep being ignorant doe
>>74197291
It's objectively true. You guys don't know the kind of figures you make
Every attempt at implementing it has failed because it's proven to be impractical
>Ground up from nothing
>Top down from capitalism
From both sides, what would actually make pure socialism work? Is it feasible in this day and age? Is it the ultimate ideology?
Quite frankly, I think the world has been battered enough by all of it's half-assed implementations.
>>74191529
Idiot detected. The Cuban exile population is around 2 million when the island itself only has a population of 11 million. Castro literally created the largest refugee crisis in postcolonial American history.
>>74197782
Yugoslavia
>>74197382
>There was social ownership
Explain
>The name was socialistic federative republic of yugoslavia
So? If i call myself god emperor of makiind can i send you to fight the xenos?
Democratic Republic Of Kingo also calls himself democratic.
>>74197670
>B-but it w-wasnt REAL socialism, see? w-Wikipedia told me so!
>commie calling anyone else ignorant
>doe
>tripfagging AND making the same fucking tread over and over again
kys my boy
>>74198009
The factories were under social ownership, it was core socialism 45-80
>>74189443
Cuber
>>74197385
You can keep believing all you want. Disprove the facts.
>>74197782
I'm not here do discuss implementability of socialism. I just asked a small question.
>Quite frankly, I think the world has been battered enough by all of it's half-assed implementations.
The world has been battered enough from corporate greed and expoitation too. I don't see you complaining
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest
>>74190098
>the state owned the means of production
>the definition of... State capitalism
Kill yourself you fucking retard. That is the textbook definition of authoritarianism socialism.
>>74197506
>Unlike our capitalistic gov?
No, however, in capitalistic societies the gov dens't have as much power because the means of production are in public hands. Capitalism becomes the player hat keeps the gov in check (and yes I know that there is lobbying but it is is still not as bad as when one body holds all the power).
>>74189443
The UK
Venezuela.
>>74189443
>socialist
>state
Pick one
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Full Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
The USSR falls under all 3 definitions. What's your special snowflake definition pinko?
>>74198461
Not a counter-argument
OP are you just mad 1974-75 didn't turn out the way you wished it would?
>>74198097
>B-but it w-wasnt REAL socialism, see?
It's not about if it's real or fake. It wasn't socialism objectivily. All those states that have socialist in their name are, theoretically, states that were in process to become socialist states. We know how many of them ended.
>>74198131
Do you have anything i could read? I am honestly interested
>>74198293
I presented you the definition of state capitalism. You choose to ignore it. How can you claim that a country is socialist when the means of production are not in the hands of the workers?
And your link is what journalists called USSR and China. If you actually bothered to read the article, you would notice that lead socialist thinkers denounced such systems as bastardizations of socialism.
>>74198359
>No, however, in capitalistic societies the gov dens't have as much power because the means of production are in public hands.
You mean private hands. And what makes you think that stuff is better in private hands?
>>74199071
History proves it is better in private hands, government rarely does something better than the market.
>>74198983
>socialist states/on their way to being OP's definition of """Socialist state"""
>all failed
I wonder why
>>74198775
Definitions are racist and sexist.
>>74198543
Socialism stil requires a state, iirc.
>>74198775
Only place i foun d that definition. Every other place as a different one.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism
>>74198983
Unforunately none in english
>>74198899
Não, se tivessemos ficado isolados tinha sido pior para nós.
>>74199175
>government rarely does something better than the market.
then you wouldn't be hard pressed to name me one invention of the free market
>>74199071
>History proves it is better in private hands, government rarely does something better than the market.
^this
The reason is simple: We are all idiots in the end, but at least in a market economy, a lot of idiots decide,not a few.
>>74199181
Because they were all shitholes. Shithole fail no matter if they ae capitalistic or socialistic. It's crazy that one of the best caribean countries is one of your so called socilaist shitholes.
>>74199473
So the workers actually owned the mean of production?
>>74199573
>invention
>not innovation
But if you insist:
Smartphones
Instead of squabbling over what is Socialism or what isn't socialism. Why don't we talk about what programs you think work specifically you stupid faggots. All we are doing is deluding language and letting this Albert Barbarossa continue to twist his nipples. who cares about the niches.
>>74199650
>We are all idiots in the end, but at least in a market economy, a lot of idiots decide,not a few.
wat? what was your part in '08 crash?
You guys fail to know that market economy does not imply democracy
>>74199774
So it's that the best you can do?
State gave us internet
>>74198461
Hi Stefan.
>>74199573
>one invention of the free market
The smartphone, the car, the dvd...
>>74199573
>Não, se tivessemos ficado isolados tinha sido pior para nós.
It seems you don't even know I was referring to. Do you know what happened right after 1974? There was a counter-revolution. The plan (your plan) failed.
>>74199782
>Instead of squabbling over what is Socialism or what isn't socialism
It's a very important thing. We all see the word socialism plastered thousands of times here. And most don't have the slightest clue of what socialism is.
>Why don't we talk about what programs
What programs?
>>74199701
Yup, 'samouprava'
>>74199701
>best Caribbean countries
http://thecubaneconomy.com/articles/tag/infrastructure/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-17935769
https://iwpr.net/global-voices/hurricane-sandy-exposes-cubas-crumbling-infrastructure
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/19/world/fg-decay19
sure thing alberto
also,
>shitty 50's cars only option
>>74199956
Sim, e caso a revolução tivesse sucedido (Se os americanos não tivessem mandado um navio de guerra para a beira de Lisboa...), o nosso estado tinha se aproximado de Moscovo, e afastado de todos os nossos vizinhos. iria ser muito pior.
>>74199862
>State invention
Computer
Roads (well, a good road system)
most of the medicine
law
>>74200213
Define "pior".
And reply in English, other people are reading too.
>>74199852
>wat? what was your part in '08 crash?
I said "a lot" not all. The 08 crisis was caused by Americans who bought houses they couldn't afford and doing investments they didn't understand. I didn't say it was perfect but other than you I am not opposed to an imperfect world.
>>74189443
If you cannot claim a previous successful socialist state then it means your idea is unworkable.
It is your duty to prove to me that socialism is a viable and superior system.
>>74194872
You can see an example of what you're describing in france during the second industrial revolution, with the phalansteries, or right after the fall of napoleon III, when in paris the workers decided to collectively own factories, you can see that both of these systems failed.
So yes, it's been really tried, and yes, it miserabley failed
>>74200149
Tell me more about this.
>>74200155
>one of the best
It doesn't mean its good.
http://www.antillean.org/caribbean-ranked-uns-human-development-report-2014/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#America.2C_North
>>74200380
Tamos a falar de Portugal entre Portugueses, eles que se fodam. Isolar-nos politicamente dos nossos vizinhos é uma má ideia, pois um embargo era certo caso o nosso governo fosse alinhado com a uniao sovietica.
>>74200803
Eu só não sei o que é que tu queres de um governo "socialista" (continuas a refugiar-te em definições para evitar argumento).
Queres que a autoridade venha de onde, exatamente?
>>74200213
>Computer
>Roads (well, a good road system)
>most of the medicine
>law
Law isn't a government invention, especially here in Germany which is based an roman law...
And computers: Yes computers for a scientific purpose were given by the government but the reason why you are sitting infront of a PC is because of free markets. Computers back then were never intended to be for private usage and it was thanks to Bill Gates and Jobs that we all now have acess to a user friendly interface.
>>74200658
Hell there was even the agrar reform which redistributed most land from the germans and limited it to (i think) around 30 hectares max, later 50
>>74200515
>The 08 crisis was caused by Americans who bought houses they couldn't afford and doing investments they didn't understand. I didn't say it was perfect but other than you I am not opposed to an imperfect world.
But what did you do that caused that? Some fuckers messed in some numbers in some computers, then suddenly some fuckers noticed in those numbers and boom, suddenly there is a major crysis and millions lost their jobs, with many who do not understand what happened. I can't defend a system like that.
>>74200586
>If you cannot claim a previous successful socialist state then it means your idea is unworkable.
Not gonna argue that
>It is your duty to prove to me that socialism is a viable and superior system.
Not the right thread bro.
>>74200641
Failed becaue there was a massive power working agaisnt them. A system cannot work isolated. At least one larger then a tribe.
You will be hard pressed to find any system that succeded with such odds agaisnt it.
Any feudal state. Technically the king owned everything and just lent it to his lords.
>>74199701
>best caribean countries
Cuba is a shithole
>>74200658
So you're saying that the best example of socialism isn't even good by western standards?
what a shocker
>responding to a shill from 8/pol/ who's trying to sucker you into his kike ideology after the board failed to do so on their own site's /pol/
Sage, hide, etc.
>>74201069
>thanks to Bill Gates and Jobs that we all now have acess
That's just the market again.
I understand the development part gearing towards common folk being acredited to them but the motivation behind it in the end just boils down to "make more money by selling to more people."
2 choices at that point, either
>teach everyone to computer at an advanced level
Nope.
>make the computer so even the dumbest of people can use onee
Yep.
>>74201147
>But what did you do that caused that?
Nothing but neither did I vote for Merkel. Some things are beyond us. Not everyone can have their way. That's just how things work.
>Some fuckers messed in some numbers in some computers, then suddenly some fuckers noticed in those numbers and boom, suddenly there is a major crysis and millions lost their jobs, with many who do not understand what happened.
You don't seem to understand what caused the crisis. Besides a major crisis will accur everyn now and then and it doen't matter who is in charge.
Edmund Burke, anyone?
Where Democracy will inevitably turn to shit because humans as a majority are idiots; they become ignorant and lazy and abandon their political responsibility...
Reminder that anyone educated enough to read and understand Karl Marx's Das Kapital/Commie Manifesto...was someone of higher class, thus would obviously disagree with everything Marx said, or simply took his teachings and reverse-engineered them to suit their need.
Real socialism has never been tried, only off-shoots that pose as socialism but really are just methods of oligarchies to control vast amounts of resources and labor. If it were actually tried, someone would betray the system to take power for themselves, as was the case with the USSR. The October Revolution was a real socialist revolution, orchestrated by Trotsky, Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Sokolnikov and Bubnov, and then immediately fell apart when Stalin seized the opportunity for himself.
We should be writing the future, not looking to the past. Technocratic party when?
>>74201051
O que é que te faz pensar que sou um socialista? Falar destes assuntos faz alguem um socialista?
E não tou á procura de uma discussão
>>74201069
>Law isn't a government invention
No? Are you retarded?
>but the reason why you are sitting infront of a PC is because of free markets.
Speculation.
>>74201122
That is not a unique thing. But where can i read more about it?
>>74201254
That is completely the opposite of socialism.
>>74201330
But it's one of the best of the area. God, you guys are so stupid.
>One of the best of particular area
is not
>the best of the world
>>74201887
>>teach everyone to computer at an advanced level
>Nope.
Which is not going to happen, because not everyone has the time to understand computers as well as IT-students. Which leads us to the greatest achievement of capitalism: Division of labour. Even Marx acknowledged that!
>>74202775
>O que é que te faz pensar que sou um socialista? Falar destes assuntos faz alguem um socialista?
Não sei onde é que te chamei socialista, mas ok.
>E não tou á procura de uma discussão
Eu sei, já te vi várias vezes por aqui, preferes não te envolver. Fazes bem.
>>74201366
Like i said, Cuba isn't socialist. But there are many critics you guys make to "socialist" countries that are undeserved.
>>74201606
Never been to cri+plechan, but keep on closing you eyes, covering your ears and singing lalalalalalalalalalla
>>74202423
The Commiefest was written deliberately so it could be read and understood by the average German worker at the time. It's irrelevant to today though.
Why are Americans brainwashed form birth to hate socialism.
Socialism worked fine in Spain before Franco took power.
Most of what /pol/ calls socialism isn't even socialism. It's just capitalism with a bit of state welfare.
The right to private property is the only true legislation that can be made to assure individual freedom.
This is a fact.
>>74202162
>HURR DURR YOU PLEBS WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND, IT WAS SOME REALLY COMPLICATED THIGS THAT HAPPENED
>Besides a major crisis will accur everyn now and then and it doen't matter who is in charge.
So you support a system that is doomed to fail?
>>74190411
>with a rather small regulatory weight
Hahahhahahahhhahahahahhahhahhaahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B-xjjNurU50
>>74203257
ORIGIN INFO FOR THAT IMAGE, STAT!
>>74202961
Most of the Caribbean islands are doing better than Cuba. You don't see people from Barbados, the Cayman Islands or Jamaica jumping on rafts to get to Florida.
And in any case, you ought to compare to what Cuba was, in the 1950s before the commies took over it had a GDP per capita on par with Finland. (And the third highest in Latin America after Argentina and Uruguay)
>>74191705
socialism existed before communism
>>74191273
>le it hasn't ever been dun befour maymay
Neither has true free market capitalism, but at least capitalism functions at some capacity.
>>74190686
Come to Europe and you'll pay through orifices you didn't even know you had
>>74203487
It's from an illustration book. Idk the name tho but it's a US author who also published stuff on other civilizations
>>74203085
>Não sei onde é que te chamei socialista, mas ok.
Li á pressa o teu post, desculpa
>>74203239
Cold war propaganda was strong in them. They see socialism as governemnt programs
>>74203308
Compared to the rest of western world.
>>74203491
>Most of the Caribbean islands are doing better than Cuba.
I showed it's not true
>You don't see people from Barbados, the Cayman Islands or Jamaica jumping on rafts to get to Florida.
Because those islanda are a fraction of the size and population compared to Cuba. And you can't make the raft voyage from these islands, unlike Cuba wich is a few hundreds(?) miles distance.
Haiti as a huge expat pop in USA. The same as Puerto Rican.
And USA was in a undeclared war vs Cuba up untila few years. SO propaganda is to be expected
>And in any case, you ought to compare to what Cuba was, in the 1950s before the commies took over it had a GDP per capita on par with Finland. (And the third highest in Latin America after Argentina and Uruguay)
Source? And for a country that was blockaded by virtually all it's neighboors, Cuba turned out fine
>>74203257
You can own property under socialism. Your clothes, home and its contents are your own.
You just can't own all the land thaat produces the food that everyone depends on. You can't own all the mines that produce wealth for the country. You can't own all the factories.
Sounds reasonable to me.
>>74203737
>le it hasn't ever been dun befour maymay
It's not a meme if it's true
>>74203737
So does socialism dummy.
Ex: the army, the police, the fire brigade, the schools, the hospitals, etc...
American education is so awful.
Socialism = baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
Capitalism = gooooooooooooooooood
>>74202775
>No? Are you retarded?
You stated just before that if you start insulting your opponent you have lost so please do yourself a favour and cut the insults thanks ;)
And yes if you see greek philosophers as part then fine the gov invented law.
>So you support a system that is doomed to fail?
I support a system that works and gives the individual the most ways to develop the way they want to be.
>>74203916
>For the record: In 1958, that "impoverished Caribbean island" had a higher standard of living than Ireland and Austria, almost double Spain and Japan's per capita income, more doctors and dentists per capita than Britain, and lower infant mortality than France and Germany – the 13th-lowest in the world, in fact. Today, Cuba's infant-mortality rate – despite the hemisphere's highest abortion rate, which skews this figure downward – is 24th from the top.
>>74203916
>>74204503
Forgot the link:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/29233
>>74204202
>So does socialism dummy.
When paid for by the engines of capitalism, sure. Do you think I'm arguing for anarchy or something? I'm perfectly okay with the idea of a government existing to maintain order within a society.
>hurr u americans r so dumb
Several US states have higher average IQs than your country muhammad
>>74203997
It's true with an absolute free market too. At least capitalism withstands the test of time.
Leftist ideologies don't work, so it's not uprising that we only find them in institutions that don't have to work to survive.
>>74191529
Cubans get shot for trying to leave, dumbass. Also there's a couple million Cubans in the US and Cuba only has a handful of a million people. I'd say it's more than 10% of their population that immigrated
>>74204229
>I support a system that works and gives the individual the most ways to develop the way they want to be.
Then you should be a communist.
In communism, the community will generally serve the role of the parents and try to strenghten all its members.
A group is no stronger than its weakest link.
>>74204202
>Socialism = baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
>Capitalism = gooooooooooooooooood
This is the best short descriptionof /pol/
>>74204229
>And yes if you see greek philosophers as part then fine the gov invented law.
It was a sumerian King that first codified punishments for certain crimes, i.e., the basis for our law.
>I support a system that works and gives the individual the most ways to develop the way they want to be.
And does it works if its dommed to fail to cyclical major crashs?
>and gives the individual the most ways to develop the way they want to be.
And you think other ways don't because?
Please don't tell me you are one of those retards that think communism is equal division of "money"
>>74204503
> Today, Cuba's infant-mortality rate – despite the hemisphere's highest abortion rate, which skews this figure downward – is 24th from the top.
Abject lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
And you seem to be ignoring what i wrote. Dispite being blockaded by almost all it's neighboors, Cuba is doing pretty fine.
>>74204999
>>74205324
>>74205431
>>74195783
>mixed economies are still capitalistic
>>74205452
>>74198461
wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad wew lad
This
>>74204818
>When paid for by the engines of capitalism, sure. Do you think I'm arguing for anarchy or something? I'm perfectly okay with the idea of a government existing to maintain order within a society.
When paid for by the engines of capitalism, sure. Do you think I'm arguing for anarchy or something? I'm perfectly okay with the idea of a government existing to maintain order within a society.
Because it's capitalism.
>At least capitalism withstands the test of time.
Because it hasn't arise any other alternative
>Leftist ideologies don't work, so it's not uprising that we only find them in institutions that don't have to work to survive.
meme
>>74204830
> I'd say it's more than 10% of their population that immigrated
Not bad. Almost 50% of my country population is living outside of our borders. (I think it includes sons of immigrants
>>74205501
>>74205431
They are both capitalistic. One of them was ruled by a madman
>>74205452
Advances made due to technological advance
>>74205457
>I don't like it, therefore it's not true
>>74205536
>Because it's capitalism.
?
>meme
only the dankest
>>74205549
>He believes those nonsense
USSR was capitalistic too. Only instead of market capitalistic, it was state capitalistic.
>>74205431
our GDP per capita ($22,500) and HDI are higher than Chile's actually. Unless they are not counting us as part of "Latin America" in which case the pic would be correct, but that would be weird.
>>74205695
They are both socialistic too. They both employ government services.
Chile is much closer to a free market than Venezuela though.
>>74205807
>muh neva ben tried befour
Yes. Now your spiting hairs.
>>74189936
based quote desu
>>74195006
>North Korea
>DPRK
><<<<<<<DEMOCRATIC>>>>>> People's Republic of Korea
>>74205974
>government services.
>Socialism
>american education
Take it easy on your cold war propaganda Cletus
>Chile is much closer to a free market than Venezuela though.
And Sweden takes a more "socialistic" aproach then Chile. Your point?
>muh neva ben tried befour
It wasn't. Stop making a ass out of yourself
>>74206145
For a american level understanding of socialism, coupled with cuckservative religious fanatism, then yes, it's a good quote
>>74204987
>In communism, the community will generally serve the role of the parents and try to strenghten all its members.
No cheers for the invitation but aside from that being in a cult doesn't suit me and people like me generally get beaten down by groups. I know that I wouldn't be able to be myself in a socialist society. But thanks pointing that out in this comment.
>And does it works if its dommed to fail to cyclical major crashs?
Because it's not doomed to fail because something new will always emerge (creative destruction)
>And you think other ways don't because?
I think I made that clear already: If someone has too much power i.e. holds all the production of means he will always infringe is power, it might even be good to his mind and will slowly take away free will from people. This is inevitable and it even happens in capitalist societies but much slower because the gov doesn't have the full power over everthing that is being made.
>>74206412
Socailism != communism
>Because it's not doomed to fail because something new will always emerge (creative destruction)
Let me see if i get this. Capitalism will always have cyclical crashes, with some having disatrous consequences. But it's not doomed to fail?
I wouldn't want a game that will crash no matter what i do.
> If someone has too much power i.e. holds all the production of means
This is capitalism. In socialism the means belong to the workers, i.e. to many people
>it might even be good to his mind and will slowly take away free will from people.
you are describing capitalism
>This is inevitable and it even happens in capitalist societies but much slower
Because?
>because the gov doesn't have the full power over everthing that is being made.
And gov as absolute power in socialism because? Like i said, in socialism, the workers own the mean of production.
>>74199852
>state gave us internet
Are you really that ignorant?
corporations and standardization are the reason you're shitposting here.
>>74206393
>government provided services aren't socialist
>sweden is "socialist"
pick one escroto
>It wasn't. Stop making a ass out of yourself
Then neither was capitalism. All of your criticisms of capitalism would go away if it were just really tried. Stop making an ass of yourself.
>>74207123
Corporations brought it to the public. But it was the state that funded the development.
There is no reason to think that if the state took on it's shoulders the task to develop personal computers, that the state wouldn' be capable
>>74207050
>I wouldn't want a game that will crash no matter what i do.
Ever heard of the pork cycle?
>In socialism the means belong to the workers, i.e. to many people
In theory but someone has to manage it e.g. this person (body) holds all the power.
>Because?
I can still choose to make my own product and compete. This is not possible in socialist societies because you cannot buy the products you need for production. Entrepreunership is the problem of every leftwing idea.
>>74207200
>"socialist"
the "" is everything here.
And i pick the first, like i've always been picking itt
>Then neither was capitalism.
Are you stupid? Free markets is not the same thing as capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
>>74208211
>Free markets is not the same thing as capitalism.
Yeah but the people advocating for capitalism are in fact in favour of free markets and are finding your idea just more objectabe.
>>74207779
Sure, but there wouldn't be any need or desire for government to be making personal computers in the first place. Even if they did it would be one single development group yielding on type of product to offer to the public.
Under capitalism we all have super computers in our pockets of all makes and models because it makes people rich to make and sell them.
>>74208211
>Free markets is not the same thing as capitalism.
Are you functionally retarded, cabrão?
>>74207779
Computation is a result of many years of entrepreneurs, engineers, mathematicians, etc.
The government didn't just "create" them, they are a direct result of many people working together over thousands of years starting from basic mathematics, to the computer world we know today. If you cant grasp the fact that somehow people other than the state can create things, you have no thinking ability.
>>74207861
>Ever heard of the pork cycle?
Another aberration of Capitalism.
>n theory but someone has to manage it
The workers.
> this person (body) holds all the power.
Why is there a need for a all powerfull person?
>This is not possible in socialist societies because you cannot buy the products you need for production.
Why?
>>74189443
Canada?
Semantics, forget the words and definitions for a second and agree what it is that works and doesn't.
Call it whatever you want to but the bottom line, people Not working and reaping benefits shouldn't even be a vote on the table.
Everyone puts in, period.
Also, free college = Library
>>74208452
>but there wouldn't be any need or desire for government to be making personal computers in the first place.
Why not? What was the interest in making computers the first place?
> Even if they did it would be one single development group yielding on type of product to offer to the public.
And it's bad because? If you actually knew, most of the so called variety is just a different package.
>Under capitalism we all have super computers in our pockets
And you are one sickness away from bankrupcy. Home ownership in the 20s is a dream for many. Youth unemployement is in huge levels. Wages are being depressed. They are flooding our countries with niggers and muslims.
But we have Iphone, so we are ok
>Are you functionally retarded, cabrão?
Newark?
>>74190098
>State capitalism
Hi lefty/pol/,
Kill yourself right now.
Sincerely,
Someone with brain
No, I will not explain why Socialism is bad for mankind as you spam same thread for hundredth times.
Sweden had a socialist state that was pretty good for a couple of decades
>>74208682
you cant buy because you dont produce because there's nothing to grow because your system failed nobody has anything and shits going nowhere
>>74208682
>Another aberration of Capitalism.
Which normal people call reality
>Why is there a need for a all powerfull person?
Ever thought about why there are people working all day in companies to manage all kinds of resources? Because it is damn difficult and you can't have everyone decide over everything. It would neither be possible due to information asymmetries nor would it be efficient.
>Why?
Let me ask you this question: You are at the blink of a descion to give resources to a person who wants to make a phone with only one button? Would you vote for or against it?
>>74208590
>Computation is a result of many years of entrepreneurs, engineers, mathematicians, etc.
The Science behind it, yes.
But i am talking about the machine
But those people were funded by state money.
Without the state funding, there was literally no incentive for companies to invest large sums of money in something it might not even be anything. There would be no incentive to finance inicial computer development because they were worthless for 20 years
t. comp sci student
>>74209196
I never made this thread in my life, nor i seen any similar here.
Explain me then, because i've yet to see anyone trying to explain
>>74209258
welfare state inserted in a capitalist society. Not socialism
>>74190574
Workers ownership of the means of production.
>>74209177
>What was the interest in making (personal) computers the first place?
Making money. IBM, Xerox and Apple wanted to sell computers to businesses, eventually they went to regular people to increase profit.
>most of the so called variety is just a different package.
Sure, but occasionally you yield market defining products and features.
>Newark
New Jersey? No, if I lived on the east side of the US I would kill myself.
>>74190098
>state owned the means of production - state capitalism
You don't understand the difference between public property and private property. USSR's constitution stated that the sovereignty belongs to the people, so the state owning the means of production means that their people own them. USSR was by its essence socialist. However, the democratic decision making process is too slow and of low quality to handle the nuances of the economical evolution of each means of production. That's why the people trusted the state to take care of everything. Naturally, when you get to own almost everything in the country, the temptation is huge, so the power was usurped by the communist party. Thus, the fact that today you consider USSR state capitalism merely proves that the socialist system implemented there failed miserably, and worryingly. that is by far not the only case.
>inb4 Romanian - I am Moldovan, ex-USSR citizen.
>>74209401
>Which normal people call reality
Because you are still too young or brainwashed to think that there might be another possibility. Not gonna argue if it's better or worse.
>Ever thought about why there are people working all day in companies to manage all kinds of resources?
Do you work?
> Because it is damn difficult and you can't have everyone decide over everything.
No one said anything that the workers might no decide hierarchies amoung themselves. Or even assign administrative tasks to some.
>You are at the blink of a descion to give resources to a person who wants to make a phone with only one button? Would you vote for or against it?
I don't really understand what you meant with this. Give resources?
>>74190098
That's the definition of Socialism you fucking idiot.
>>74191458
not real socialism
>>74209943
>My special brand of socialism hasn't been tried
How many fucking failures of Socialism being tried do we need before you psychopaths are satisfied that is is a horrible economic system?
it is only fair to call a state socialist or communist if the owners of the means of production effectively represent the people. communism's predicated on the communal ownership of all means of production, so it only makes sense that we can call communist states communist if the 'people' as an abstract group have complete control over the means of production.
the USSR would be an example of communism if it were true that the state who controlled the means of production effectively represented the interests of the russian populace and were completely accountable to the russian populace at every point in time. this was not the case. as a result, the USSR was not communist.
it claimed to be communist, and lenin certainly wanted communism to come about, but as it existed in history, it doesn't satisfy the absolutely vital condition for a country to be called socialist or communist.
>>74209612
And tell me a country that had this.
>>74209619
>Making money. IBM, Xerox and Apple wanted to sell computers to businesses, eventually they went to regular people to increase profit.
They took a idea after decades of development and made money out of it.
>New Jersey? No, if I lived on the east side of the US I would kill myself.
Adivinhei que estarias lá. Em que cidade?
>>74209788
>USSR's constitution stated that the sovereignty belongs to the people
And my country constitution states that deficit is forbidden. But they spin it out and claim that by borrowing money from other countries, the budget is not deficit.
> so the state owning the means of production means that their people own them. USSR was by its essence socialist.
Now let's look at reality.
>>74209889
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Google it before you post crap mate
>>74210268
>My special brand of socialism hasn't been tried
We are not talking about "brands of socialism". We are talking about plain and simple socialism.
Read the thread, because every fucking thing you are about to say as already been said and answered
>>74209869
>Because you are still too young or brainwashed to think that there might be another possibility.
Because being young invalidates any argument. Either way I am a finance student.
>Do you work?
I have worked (even minimum wage)
>I don't really understand what you meant with this. Give resources?
You don't understand entrepreneurship, do you?
Every industrialized country on earth has socialist elements.
>>74210530
in what sense?
>>74190098
You're looking at the end result of socialism dipshit, when shit goes south and things stop working. Stop making threads if you can't form an argument.
>>74207050
Srsly, kill yourself.
>>74198293
Oh yes, you use textbook in colleges in the US. Fucking retards.
>>74190098
Spain, why didn't you annex these niggers ?
>>74210627
If only the "Muh Socialism" faggots could reinvent the human animal to be more like...Ants. Yeah, little, obedient ants, above any manner of greed or corruption.
>>74189443
You're mother
Every worker got a share of her
>>74210453
This is what i was trying to reach.
>>74210491
>Because being young invalidates any argument
I wasn't trying to refute any argument. But being young normally reflects in a very different way of thinking. You will get wise as you get older. I did.
>I have worked (even minimum wage)
And did most of your managers did?
>>74210589
>>74210530
He thinks gov programs is socialism. Another retard that only know socialism by 2nd hand and /pol/ memes
>>74210477
I can think of none that explicitly had workers ownership of the means of production. I'm sure there are some communes like Rojava which may be close to it.
>>74190098
This is probably the most retarded thing I've read all day.
>>74210627
>Stop making threads if you can't form an argument.
>literally no argument presented
So are you actually going to try to refute that USSR wasnt a state capitalist economy or will you act like a good old
>american education?
>>74210702
My teaching was always unpolitical. Try again
>>74210793
They tried, but they failed hard.
>>74210919
>And did most of your managers did?
No because I was less qualified and I was ok with that.
>>74210820
I mean it would work then.
In fact light amounts of socialism can work in homogeneous society as the desire to contribute and support YOUR people is a driving force. Systems like these still use capitalism though; socialism is not a viable form of an economic system. Sames goes for communism for similar reasons.
>>74193424
State capitalism is a Marxist oxymoron made to obscure debates. Capitalism is when the state does not intefeer or control the economy. If all industries are managed by the State as opposed to the "workers" or the proletariat then that is not capitalism and calling it state capitalism to hide the failure of the USSR is simply dishonest.
>>74210838
kek
>>74211015
A croatian poster said Tito Yoguslavia was socialistic, and the workers owned the means of production.
Catalonia during Spanish Civil war?
>>74211101
So it won't be hard to refute it?
But we both know you can't, or else you would have done it
>>74211015
yeah, rojava is a decent example. ocalan is a true communist, and the kurdish operate under his ideas, such as democratic confederalism. they're a fair example of a group that actually is striving for some outcome resembling communist ideals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Confederalism
there are some small places in mexico as well that could satisfy the worker ownership condition. i can't remember the name offhand, but true examples of communism exist. they're just rather small, since we live in a world dominated by capitalism. the ruling class who live off the labor of workers will certainly do everything in their power to prevent communism from becoming popular, because then the present day ruling class will lose their ownership rights and have to actually work to receive the means of subsistence. you'll never see communism get large without a popular revolution that occurs simultaneously in many countries of the world.
you can bet that if rojava ever takes off the united states will be there to crush it to pieces.
Great, it's that autistic Manuel again
>>74211138
>Portugal.
>Muh Socialism
>Teachings.
Trifecta of fail in one post.
>>74211308
Then you had luck. I don't work, because i am a student. But most always say that most managers are a complete fuckwitts worthless guys.
Tell me why should managers and those guys receive a cut of other people work?
![[DESS]Nichijou_18_1080.BD.FLAC.Underwater-Commie_[ECCDC772].mkv_snapshot_05.38_[2016.04.09_23.05.32]cropped.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aBFJ2vC.jpg "[DESS]Nichijou_18_1080.BD.FLAC.Underwater-Commie_[ECCDC772].mkv_snapshot_05.38_[2016.04.09_23.05.32]cropped.jpg")
>>74207050
>In socialism the means belong to the workers, i.e. to many people
Stop embarrassing yourself. This is retarded.
>>74211346
> Systems like these still use capitalism though;
Then it's capitalism
>>74196081
Do you prefer the american college textbooks? Might as well cite fox news as a source.
>>74189443
Portugal? I love how you people live in denial. Shit you have been ruled by socialist parties since the end of the dictatorship. You have been ruled so long by socialists that you don't even realise anymore that you live in one socialist state. Hell, even your "Conservative" party is socialist in essence (Social Democratic Party).
>Until the constitutional revisions of 1982 and 1989, the constitution was a highly charged ideological document with numerous references to socialism, the rights of workers, and the desirability of a socialist economy. It severely restricted private investment and business activity. Many of these articles were advanced by Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) representatives in the Constituent Assembly, but they were also advocated by members of the Socialist Party (PS), who at that time, for electoral reasons, were seeking to be as revolutionary as the other left groups.
>The resulting document proclaimed that the object of the republic was "to ensure the transition to socialism." The constitution also urged the state to "socialize the means of production and abolish the exploitation of man by man," phrases that echoed Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. Workers' Committees were given the right to supervise the management of enterprises and to have their representatives elected to the boards of state-owned firms.
> The government, among many admonitions in the same vein, was to "direct its work toward the socialization of medicine and the medicopharmaceutical sectors."
>Despite the 1982 amendments, centrists and conservatives continued to criticize the constitution as too ideological and economically restrictive. Hence, the constitution was amended again in 1989. Many economic restrictions were removed and much ideological language eliminated, while governmental structures remained unchanged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Portugal
>>74211695
explain why.
>>74211644
They aren't. They're also working which is why they're getting paid for their work.
>>74210919
You still haven't provided an argument.
You've circumvented mine though.
Why do you think the USSR became a "state-capitalist based economy"?
>>74211362
>Capitalism is when the state does not intefeer or control the economy.
Then we literally never had capitalism in our history. Are you retarded?
>If all industries are managed by the State
I don't think that all industries were managed by the state in USSR. Only the large. There was small companies in private hands. I would like that someone who knows more to clear up this for me.
>and calling it state capitalism to hide the failure of the USSR is simply dishonest.
Speaks the same people that call Venezuela socialism, kek
>>74189443
* USSR
* Cuba
* China
* Vietnam
* East Germany
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/communism.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html
>>74211713
no shit that's why they work
socialism isn't a viable replacement for an economic system, proven time and time again every time people try to make socialist societies.
>>74211833
link me to your post please. I am getting many (you) i can't keep track of them
answer to your question is the last part of this post
>>74195783
>>74211644
>But most always say that most managers are a complete fuckwitts worthless guys.
Most people that say that have never been managers. Being manager is very stressful and requires more overtime hours. Its also hard, not every idiot can do it. And yes, there are some times where managers can be idiots, but those are the minority, a company can't survive if all their managers are idiots.
>>74211920
More a feudal system I believe
>>74211956
>aynrandlexicon
>>74211920
>Then we literally never had capitalism in our history.
So? Doesn't change the nature of capitalism.
>Are you retarded?
Not an argument.
>I don't think that all industries were managed by the state in USSR. Only the large.
Eventually yeah, because it doesn't work unless private enterprise is there.
>Speaks the same people that call Venezuela socialism, kek
How so? What would be your definition of socialism then? Why doesn't it fit to Venezuela?
>>74211958
>socialism isn't a viable replacement for an economic system
This is not being discussed here
>>74201606
why would jews wan't communism? they do so well under the current system
>>74210477
>>74210268 this.
Trying to control the means of production democratically on a centralized level leads to the situation where everything is controlled by the institutions of the state, which are themselves controlled by a single party where the higher ranked are friends and share all among themselves. Hence OP's illusion that it would be state capitalism, which it can't be, as de iure the state is socialist, while de facto...
>Now let's look at reality. I'm answering this here, pay attention faggot
...it is capitalist crypto-oligarchy, the crypto-oligarchs being the ones close enough to the leaders of the party, or leaders themselves, to be trusted with managing state corporations that kept their wealth hidden with the complicity of the ruling party because otherwise a declared socialist state would have to confiscate it.
The only kind of socialism that seems viable is the one where the means of production are still under private ownership, but the state applies progressive taxation to get money for welfare (Such as the scandinavian countries), or gives the corporations certain social tasks (Natsoc Germany or today's Belarus). Here the state adopts a passive role of regulating the wealth (as opposed to the communist-wannabe type, where the state has to control every aspect of the economy)
>>74212421
?
Then you agree that we should have capitalism in all societies?
What do you mean?
>>74212368
>What would be your definition of socialism then?
Not mine. I am talking about a very wide definition accepted by almost all scholars for socialism.
That the workers own the means of productions. The rest isn't very important. Just this.
Venezuelan workers didn't own the means of productions, the state and privates did.
>>74189443
OP is right, There has never existed a system with democratic control over the means of production.
All OP is proving is most people are ignorant in these topics.
>>74211761
Because it can go 2 ways:
*Either someone owns it (government or private) and they will keep the means of production running. Government will obviously be more inefficient than private.
*If "everyone" owns it, then its like if no one owns it. "Everyone" will expect someone else to do it, and no one will. Just try it, assign a responsibility to "everyone" in a group, and see how no one does it because everyone thought someone else would do it.
>>74189717
sure totally.
>>74190411
It was very socialist
>>74190411
USA was communist.
>>74212689
No, people have tried this and it just never works.
That's why it never happens. It can't happen.
Good fucking luck when you want to try it again btw.
>>74212646
>That the workers own the means of productions.
If you don't have a government or a private owning the responsibility of the means of production. Who will have responsibility to keep things running? Or when something goes wrong? Or to decide in what should they invest?
>>74202423
>real socialism has never been tried
aaaaaand it's Canada
>>74212646
The current system in the US is socialism then. The people who own the means of production work at their companies so the workers do own the means of production.
>>74212616
>Trying to control the means of production democratically on a centralized level leads to the situation where everything is controlled by the institutions of the state
Ence state capitalism. It's not that hard to understand
>which are themselves controlled by a single party where the higher ranked are friends and share all among themselves.
Dictatorship is neither a requirement nor rules out capitalism.
>it is capitalist crypto-oligarchy
If it's corrupt or not is of no concern. Its still capitalistic. But do teel me why it's not state capitalism.
>The only kind of socialism that seems viable is the one where the means of production are still under private ownership
It's not socialism, because the means of production are still not in the hands of the workers
>as opposed to the communist-wannabe type, where the state has to control every aspect of the economy
Communism is a stateless society. God you are clueless
>>74212888
>People have tried it.
>Names no country
Thanks for proving my point. Just look around this thread, each person insulting OP has a whole different "definition" of socialism.
99% of you guys don't know anything.
>>74197963
thats rich coming from a croat
if it was so successful why did you guys leave the party so early
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence
