Name me a socialist country
Vietnam
I hear Venezuela is a pretty good one.
>>74387315
Swedecuckistan
>>74387315
Canada
DPRK
USA
>>74387740
Venezuela is not a socialist country, it has a socialist goverment but the country itself is not
California
>>74387315
United States of America.
denmark, sweden, germany, finland, norway ...
that poor little fella ;-;
Canada
>>74387315
Hitler
I used to shoot squirrels all the time for getting into my strawberry beds and bird feeder, but this is just too fucking cruel
>>74387827
>this level of goalpost shifting
Your flag doesn't surprise me one bit
>>74387615
Not close
Vietnam communist party was a nationalist party that seeked International support from USSR. They were never very aligned with USSR.
>>74387740
Not socialist. Capitalist with high state intervention. And a deeply moronic one
>>74387615
fpbp
>>74387785
>i called cuck to someone. Surely now my intense cuckhold fetishes will disapear
>>74387805
lol
>>74387807
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>""""""""""""""""""Democratic"""""""""""""""""""""" People republic of Korea
>>74387828
The engine of USA is socialistic?
>>74387859
capitalist.
Define me socialism.
>>74387896
All capitalist
>>74387957
...was a mad man and a rabid dog that was best if he kept sleeping in ditches
>>74388024
You have a weird understanding of what is socialism and what not.
Vietnam is socialist according to their constitution
>>74387828
This is actually the correct answer, and you have no idea why lol
But you are welcome for your state's welfare money and produce <3
>>74388014
>this level of goalpost shifting
Are you stupid? I asked for a socialist country, and he said very well that Venezuela wasn'r socialist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Educate yourself nigger
>>74387315
>inb4 the entire thread is "muh textbook definition of socialism, not reality socialism"
>>74388202
It's very hard. But to considder a nation socialist the means of production need to be in workers hands
>>74387315
>my specific, infallible brand of socialism has never been tried
>>74388257
>Vietnam is socialist according to their constitution
Lol are you stupid? And noth korea is democratic because it says so?
>>74388422
So define socialism
>>74388461
>socialism has never been tried
This is objectivily true. Some small scale attempts were made, doe
OP where are you going with this
>>74387315
none because socialism is a fairy tale
Is that what you want us to say?
>hurr socialism has never tried
By your definition any country that becomes socialist can't be socialists there fore socialism is like a fucking unicorn, it can't fucking exist because every time it fail you'll say "not real socialism"
You make this thread every fucking day, I will find you, cut your head off and shit down your gaping throat cunt you Portuguese ass fucking shit! Fuck you!
>>74388524
They are as socialist as it get, socialism like it exist in the dreams of fedoras is impossible
>>74388429
>The means of production need to be in workers hands
In that case, there is no country like this, and there probably will never be one.
>>74387315
Currently? Only North Korea is pure socialism. Democratic socialism at that. Other countries are mostly capitalist with social policies based on socialism and parasiting on top of a capitalist system. Which is, to be fair, more efficient until corruption overwhelms the system.
Which has already happened.
>>74388609
Simple question that even the majority of brandead /pol/ can read. Name me one socialist state.
But i guess a one of the 10 cuck threads are more interesting
>>74388607
I don't have to define shit you spergy nigger.
You've already proven me right, and this is just another "no true gommunism" thread. Do the board a favor and suck start a shotgun.
Cuba?
China?
>>74388257
North Korea is also a Democratic Republic, so I hear.
>>74388673
>none because socialism is a fairy tale
Arguable. But i'm not here to discuss wether socialism is better or worse. Make another thread so you can circlejerk with the retards about how mad socialism is.
>Is that what you want us to say?
Are you 10?
>By your definition any country that becomes socialist can't be socialists there fore socialism is like a fucking unicorn, it can't fucking exist because every time it fail you'll say "not real socialism"
The workers own the means of production. Central part of socialism. It's very unfair to call a system socialistic if the workers don't own the mean of capitalism
>>74387827
>its government is
>the country is not
im sorry?
>>74388673
>You make this thread every fucking day, I will find you, cut your head off and shit down your gaping throat cunt you Portuguese ass fucking shit! Fuck you!
mad
>>74388707
state intervention is not socialism. Educate yourself nigger
>>74388829
>there probably will never be one
Arguable
>In that case, there is no country like this
Yes
>>74388848
>Only North Korea is pure socialism.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. So the workers own the means of production in NK?
>>74388919
>I don't have to define shit you spergy nigger.
>>74389033
Do you actually think they are socialist?
>>74389089
Venezuela dosen't claim to be a socialist country in its constitution or elswhere.
Lets say Bernie would become US president, then the US would have a dem. soicalist goverment but wouldn't be a socialist state
>>74389241
That's communism you fucking mongoloid cretin. In socialism the state owns the means of production. At the very least get your terms right or stop speaking about things you don't understand.
>>74389314
can you really be this retarded? what is a country other than a government saying that it is
socialist government = socialist country
>>74389089
So when labour wins the election Britain is a socialist country?
>>74389337
> In socialism the state owns the means of production
Retard. That is state capitalism.
>That's communism you fucking mongoloid cretin.
lol
>At the very least get your terms right or stop speaking about things you don't understand.
hahahahahha, the irony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>>74388172
The 'Merican edumation "system" defines socialism as a system where both the state and the people own the means of production.
A more liberal definition, the one used around /pol/, is an economy with heavy state intervention, generally wealth redistribution.
Are we playing semantics here or do you have some semblance of a point to make, you moorish rape baby.
>>74389567
except labour arent socialist to the point that Venezuela is?
>>74387315
> end all forms of currency money (either by value or by debt)
> end all forms of market and commerce
> end industry, start producing only what the people need for a comfortable, happy and prosperous life
> end 98% of the jobs, end the concept of wage slavery
> update our social construct to represent our current technological and scientific knowledge (instead of using a social system that's pretty much the same it was 6000 years ago)
with all the class system bullshit gone we can start building (what we would call today) a "Utopia", we do have the technology for it.
the real problem is that there are a LOT of people in this world that don't want a utopia and that have the power and means to stop it.
and that's true socialism.
>>74389528
Lol no.
Socialisim means that the workers get the factories, Vietnam claims thats the case, China claimed thats the case. Venezuela is not claiming thats the case, the Socialist goverment only says that this is their goal.
>>74387315
yours
>It's another "Noo it's state capitalism bcuz I say soo!" thread by a guy who couldn't even succeed on cripplechan
>>74389528
>can you really be this retarded?
It's lovely to see this underages saying stuff like this and then saying the rest that he says.
>>74389611
>The 'Merican edumation "system" defines socialism as a system where both the state and the people own the means of production.
Brainwash much then? Literally nobody else define socialism as that. Socialism central caratheristic revolves around workers owning the means of production.
Calling a system socialist without the workers owning the means of production is strawman, like calling a system capitalistic that does not have private property
>>74389691
does consent exist?
>>74389567
If you want to use mental gymnastics to change socialism to mean communism, then be my guest. You're not achieving anything except displaying yourself to be ignorant of the systems you're talking of.
Even your own wikipedia articles prove you wrong, because you don't seem to understand what these words mean:
"characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production"
So to put this in retard speak for you to understand, the state which represents the society through a democratic system is delegated the ownership and management of the means of production.
The workers own the means of production only on paper and in the sense that they have a vote as to what can be done with the system. In all practical terms, the state owns the means of production as a representative of the workers.
Doesn't help that you link the retarded state capitalism article which has this line "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"
Which does not describe north Korea. It does describe USA or China, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about you being a intellectually maimed child with no idea as to how communism works.
>>74387315
Poland, but at least we don't get refugees
>>74389936
So you're defining socialism as what communism is supposed to be, but fails upon attempt as it is inherently flawed?
North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba are the only socialist countries in the world right now. Venezuela will collapse in a matter of weeks and Cuba is likely to go China style capitalist in the next decade, leaving only North Korea.
Socialism is dead, it really is. Even the Bernie Sanders types have accepted the inevitability of a market economy.
>>74389873
Nah, just a capitalist system with a big corrupt state
>>74390140
I won't reply to you anymore until you actually read the fucking definitions.
Socialism -> workers own the means of production
I won't even bother to read your post
>>74390177
Poland isn't and never was socialist
>>74390296
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>pic related
>>74390412
I don't want you to reply, I want you to learn what socialism is. But since you're obviously too intellectually crippled, perhaps it's best if you just left for Bernie 4 president and discussed your mental gymnastics techniques with them. They could use the help.
>>74390412
>Poland isn't
Yeah, the 500+ programme is not socialist at all
>and never was socialist
Kek, sure it wasn't lad, and especially not from 1944 to 1989
>>74390706
When did the workers own the means of production in Poland?
Just because a regime calls itself anything doesn't mean anything
According to you North Korea is a democratic republic
Poortugal please.
>>74387315
Every nation with a welfare system.
>>74390891
I just posted a propaganda poster of the cooperative from the 60s, nigger.
>>74390891
Just because you call something communism doesn't make it communism either, you're objectively wrong and your own definition proves you wrong.
You're either illiterate or performing mental gymnastics on such a level that language has no longer any meaning to you.
>>74390891
>>74391012
Literally first two lines from the wikipedia article (you) posted:
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, AS WELL AS THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES, THEORIES AND MOVEMENTS THAT AIM AT THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.
>SOCIAL OWNERSHIP MAY REFER TO public ownership, COOPERATE OWNERSHIP, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.
>>74390412
My god, your idiocy never ceases to amaze me.
According to your precious Wikipedia.
Communism: Workers own the means of production
Socialism: Workers own the factory
SURE ARE DIFFERENT, HUH?
>>74390986
>muh feelz
>>74391012
It's a pretty common cold war poster style.
>>74391173
>Just because you call something communism doesn't make it communism either,
True
>you're objectively wrong and your own definition proves you wrong.
Because? Post proof
>You're either illiterate or performing mental gymnastics on such a level that language has no longer any meaning to you.
You are calling me retard and you post no prof nor make any arguments. Suit yourself bro
>>74391194
So in Poland the Heavy industry factories were owned by the workers?
>Workers own the factory
Workers own the means of production. It's the same. A factory is a mean of production.
Communism is a stateless society, a sort of utopia that should be established peaceffuly and naturaly after a socialist society
>>74389308
>>74391631
>strawman
Name me one socialist society
>>74391515
Read your wikipedia article. Read it. Get a dictionary if you need it. Not that you should be relying on Wikipedia anyway, that's fucktarded.
>>74391515
>pretty common cold war poster style
I literally just proved you are wrong, there were cooperatives owned by employees and that falls under socialism by the same goddamn wiki article you posted.
>So in Poland the Heavy industry factories were owned by the workers?
Yes, there were few heavy industry factories that weren't owned by the state and surprise, farms produce things too, so they also fall under your meme definition.
>Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
Poland was and is socialist, deal with it.
There have been several quasi-communist communities, mostly formed by religious fanatics, over the past few hundred years. Some went so far with the abolition of private property, and the embracing of communitarianism that men and women weren't allowed to be married; every individual belonged to the community, promiscuity was sometimes enforced.
Needless to say they all ended in disaster.
>>74391861
Socialism ->Workers own the means of production
Do they?
>>74391869
>there were cooperatives owned by employees and that falls under socialism
The fact that there where cooperatives doesn't mean that a state is socialist. USA has cooperatives iirc, and it's not socialist.
> there were few heavy industry factories that weren't owned by the state
Exactly. state != workers.
>Poland was and is socialist, deal with it.
No it wasn't. State capitalism at best
>>74392091
True,, because they were isolated communities of a few hundred at best. They would fail no matter what.
Hi
>>74392759
how do you do.
>>74391515
Answer me as to your definition of communism, shit for brains.
The in Democratic People's Republic of Korea, obviously since socialism works so well, the state is an extension of the people. Obviously because "democratic" is in the name, therefore the state being an extension of the people, the people. own the means of production.
The removal of the "invisible hand" of capitalism requires regulation to replace it. Strong regulation requires strong central government to enforce.
A factory owned by the workers that competes in the free market is entirely possible within the confines of today's free market. They do, in fact, exist as well. They're called "co-ops" here.
What's stopping you from recruiting workers and running a factory? You're answer lies in why some people make more, they're willing to take the aforementioned risk.
>>74393582
>Answer me as to your definition of communism, shit for brains.
Not my definition. I read some definitions, but my knowledge of communism is minimal. yest it seems to be larger then 90% of /pol/ pop.
>the state is an extension of the people
The thing is Marx didn't. He considered that the state was made to serve the capitalistts desires.
He didnt't want a bug state. Much to the contrary.
>The removal of the "invisible hand" of capitalism requires regulation to replace it. Strong regulation requires strong central government to enforce.
I think one of the main tenets of socialism or communism is the abolition of money. So problem solved
>>74393960
>I read some definitions, but my knowledge of communism is minimal.
This is obvious.
>seems to be larger then 90% of /pol/ pop.
If it's so minimal how can you accurately determine that?
>I think one of the main tenets of socialism or communism is the abolition of money. So problem solved
Okay, now I know you're just shit posting. That goes nowhere in refuting my statement. If you cannot comprehend that you are beyond help.
KEK Almighty CRAPTCHA errors.
