Name me one socialist state in history, please

Name me one socialist state in history, please.

Other urls found in this thread:

newsmax.com/Newsfront/aid-medicaid-food-stamps-census-bureau/2015/07/08/id/654041/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
quora.com/How-reliable-is-Wikipedia-as-a-source-of-information-and-why
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

...

USSR

Let's see, in USSR, the state owned the means of production, wich is the definition of... State capitalism.

>Name me one socialist state in history
United states of america

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.

define socialism

Wrong. It's not pure unadulterated capitalism at all. People are taxed to through the nose to pay for other people.

>Not socialist by any deegre.
20% of the population lives with goverment money
newsmax.com/Newsfront/aid-medicaid-food-stamps-census-bureau/2015/07/08/id/654041/

Successful or failed?

t. Trotsky

...

> 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

Nah man is da fault of evil whitey fo colonialism n sheeit

You can meme all you want, but it doesn't change facts.

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.

State interference is a huge part of it.

It's the same way you nit pick how some countries aren't socialist.

Nazi Germany
Venezuela
USSR

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.

doesn't their capitalist neighbor have actually no resources at all?

>inb4 flood of LE NO TROO SGOTSMAN EBIN XDDDDD

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.

im sorry, just flying by, but socialism is a child of communism how

>Mongoloid noises.

Shame, OP. Shame.

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.

Sweden

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.

All of them were state capitalist, or mixed economies with a larget state intervention. None of them were socialistic.

Venezuela is capitalistic

>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.

>You are like these Libertarians who say that the US isn't a capitalist country.

But it is.

No they were not

mixed economy

bump

>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

National Socialist Germany

You're just mad that socialism only works in a homogeneous white society. Go do something productive like bang an adufe.

my argument is so solid noone have replied

How is life in costa rica

Not socialist . The left wing of the party left with Strasser. They were capitalistic, with a huge gov intervention.

But socialism as never been tried. That homogenous population is a meme.

I didn't even watch your post, i will give you a (You)

That is not socialism. Welfare!=Socialsim

That "socialism has never been tried" meme is a meme that needs to die.

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.

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.

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.

>USSR
>Union of Soviet Republics
>not socialist

Jesus I knew pinkos were retarded but this is on a new level

Denmark.

Git gud.

>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.

Does social democracy count?

if it's so good then why hasn't anyone tried it

Venezuela is socialist, and they're doing fantastic. There's definitely not a complete societal breakdown happening.

>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

Are you the same one that always post in my thread?

Como vai a vida?

>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?


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

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

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

>no true scotsman

Oh fuck off already. Until someone manages to do it, nothing will be socialism in your eyes.

Mixed economy, bro.

>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

>USA
>a mixed economy

Seriously?
Don't they basically give an unemployed guy some pity money for a few months and stop caring afterwards?

>Wikipedia as a source

>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....

>The rich will willingly give the means of production

It's not socialism.

Venezuela is not socialist. The state owns the means of production, and so do privates. That is capitalism.

Yeah, because when they went socialist, all the forests burned to the ground, the climate went to shit, and the oil evaporated.

>having difficulties fighting 1% of the population
laughable

So what is USA then?

point your critics, then.

livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

>So what is USA then?

Cruel?

>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

Yes retard, representative say is still say.

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.

Not when the rest 90% of population is so imensely brainwashed, and willingly goes out and fight for some rich fags.

> mixed economy with with capitalist aspects is still capitalist
> that mixed economy with socialist aspects? not socialist! nuh-uh!

then why don't you kill yourself if you have no chance

what post are you refering to?

>State ownership is literally socialism

Source?
And there is no need to insult. In real arguments, once you start to insult, you automatically lost.
Not socialistic. State capitalism, i think.

What do you mean?

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.

>socialist aspects

What social aspects?

>pic related

>LE NO TROO SGOTSMAN XDDD
Every. Fucking. Time.

>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.

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

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.

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.

>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?

The fat man in the blue is a Zionist Corporation

>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

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.

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.

Yugoslavia

>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.

>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

The factories were under social ownership, it was core socialism 45-80

Cuber

You can keep believing all you want. Disprove the facts.

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest

>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.

>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).

The UK

Venezuela.

Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument
Not an argument

>socialist
>state

Pick one

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?

Not a counter-argument

OP are you just mad 1974-75 didn't turn out the way you wished it would?

>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.

Do you have anything i could read? I am honestly interested

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.

>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?

History proves it is better in private hands, government rarely does something better than the market.

>socialist states/on their way to being OP's definition of """Socialist state"""
>all failed

I wonder why

Definitions are racist and sexist.