So will Sup Forums finally name me one Socialist country?

So will Sup Forums finally name me one Socialist country?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Reich_Trilogy
research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb64.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

sweden

Lao People's Democratic Republic

>Rekt

The Soviet Union.

Venezuela

capitalist with a large welfare system

Also Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Cuba.

lol.

So it was democratic too?

State capitalist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Capitalist with a corrupt and huge governement

So North Korea is a democratic republic too?

Democratic only in name my good goy.

"Laos is a one-party socialist republic. It espouses Marxism and is governed by a single party communist politburo dominated by military generals."

Drumpfs USA will be fascist socialist

>capitalist
>large welfare system

uh huh and I'm straight but I enjoy sucking the occasional dick

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Now fuck off and die red.

>'nation pretitles are always 100% accurate'

>Democratic only in name my good goy.

Exactly. They are socialist only in name too. Dem juicy USSR moneis

No, capitalist.


One does not invalidate the other. Welfare is a huge part of caitalism. Arguably capitalism could not exist without welfare.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

I agree with you

Exactly. My point.

>Socialist only in name

>Not socialist in name

>Has socialist one party political system

8/8 bye, thanks for the bait.

Kill yourself you fucking idiot.

>state capitalism
Nope. That's just "no true socialist" buck passing. It's literally right there in the name.
Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic.
I think they would know a little bit more about what is and isn't socialism than you do comrade.

If any one has the definition of socialism wrong it's you.

>Capitalist with a corrupt and huge governement
You can literally get your property confiscated by the government. That's not capitalism at all.

canada

Do the workers own the means of production? Then it's not socialism

>Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic.
>""""""""""""""""""Democratic republic"""""""""""""""""" of the people of Korea

>If any one has the definition of socialism wrong it's you.

Define socialism

>Definitions are mean and make my thinky hurt

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Ahem

Capitalist. Try again

north korea

look how that turned out

So North Korea is a Democratic republic too?

bump

i will just make another thread

>North Korea
>USSR
>Pre-90's China
>Venezuela

Sure is working out for them, right?

Shit thread btw, consider suicide.

In wich country did the workers own the means of production?

Nazi Germany.

And this.

>The USSR was capitalist
Fucking lel. Oh boy, it's not just a tripfag, it's also cancerchan.

Read the link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

>Nazi Germany.

The nazis did not even dismantled the huge companies when they came to power.

Also the socialist wing left the party with Strasser

...

All of the above.

...

I'm a Trump supporter. But nice strawman

So you are a retard. In what way did the citizens of USSR owned the means of production?

They were only in power for less than a decade, you moron.

That's communism you retard

>Is dumb as a sack of bricks
>Is a Trump supporter
Gee, I'm so surprised I think I'll shit my pants now.

Then prove to me they were socialist. Use definitions and establish paraleles betwen those definitions and the regimes.

I said they weren't socialist because the workers did not owned the menas of production.

Lol, read a little about the subject, then. Hitler protected the large conglomerates.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Read you fucking moron.

Damn...I'm a trump supporter too..

The fact that none of these pol tards can't name a single country in which the people owned the means of production, proves that true socialism has never existed...

Any other /leftypol/ info? I'm intrigued...I'm more of libertarian guy cause of Ron Paul, but now I'm really interested in possibly becoming a socialist...

I don't care about americans, but i enjoy the circus that american politics are. If Trump wins the White House then the circus will be even bigger. So MAGA!

I've never been to criplechan, nor am i a commie.

>but now I'm really interested in possibly becoming a socialist..

Me too. I'm just waiting for school to end to start reading Marx works.

Honestly with computers we can have them run society and generate unlimited resources for every individual on this planet...

I can't wait for the singularity...

>1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
check
>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
>4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
>5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
>7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
>8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
>9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
>10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

So which point from the 10 planks of the communist manifesto don't Venezuela or Best Korea fulfill?

>communist manifesto
Stop being retards.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

Communist manifesto was demands that the communist party had in the liberal revolutions in 1848.

It had nothing to do with what communism/socialism is/was

Me too. A life without work and dedicated to our pleasure is dreamy

what about Nestor Makhno's state in south-east Ukraine?

/thread

Tell me about it

>Muh feels

Exactly this.

>communist manifesto
>Hurr following the communist manifesto doesn't make you a communist
>Calling other people retards.
You are partially right though. Communism is a retarded form of socialism and therefore simply can't be put into practice except in a tiny hippie commune. Socialism is quite a bit broader in scope, since communism is a subset of it.

>muh welfare is communism!
Stop learning your definitions from the anglosphere. They don't even know what the fuck Socialism is.

It kind of worked but then the soviets decided that they no longer need a rogue "nation" they can't control.

North Korea is probably the only true socialist nation on Earth. Next closest is Scandinavia, followed by Western Europe.

Believe it or not, China is even more capitalistic than the USA. Disregard anything you heard about China being communist or socialist as a complete lie. Their party is called the communist party, and that's where it ends. Their economy and society is utterly capitalist, even the USA has more socialist economic and social policies.

Communist manifesto deal with problems of capitalism mostly. It's not descriptive of either commuism or socialism. It's only widely known today because it made several preditions that turned out true.

How can you consider a state socialist if the workers don't own the means of production?

>North Korea is probably the only true socialist nation on Earth. Next closest is Scandinavia, followed by Western Europe.


So the workers owned the means of production in all countries? Or is it that socialism for you is anything that hurts your

>Muh Fellz!!!

>Believe it or not, China is even more capitalistic than the USA.
>He thinks this is a big news for anyone

I want to amend this also. The reason people claim that the USSR wasn't "true communism" is because they're right. The reason it wasn't true communism is because it wasn't true Socialism and the reason it wasn't true Socialism is because communism, like libertarianism is a physical impossibility that exists by way of blatant contradictions. Because of this, it always has to augment itself by adding other forms of governance like despotism - an that's exactly what the USSR did. The USSR was about as communist as it's possible to make a nation state.

Stop being artificially retarded. I already told you, that's not relevant in communism because communism is hardly even a valid form of Socialism. Technically, it is a form of Socialism, and falls under its umbrella when it comes to classification, but it's like the retarded cousin that can't eat without stabbing himself in the eye with his spoon. He'll never grow up to be a functional Socialist, but he was born to a Socialist family and is sort of technically Socialist.

No, because they don't work and thus don't exist for very long.

>The USSR was about as communist as it's possible to make a nation state.

Nah, after Stalin seized power, USSR no longer attempted to make itself socialist. Stalin could even be fighting for the Whites had the Tsar regime not treated him badly.


>that's not relevant in communism

wat? are you stupid? And if socialism is viable or not it's not the point of the thread.

But how do you know it doesn't work if it never existed?

What the fuck man. Stalin is not communism, nor is he the USSR.

>wat? are you stupid? And if socialism is viable or not it's not the point of the thread.
The fact is, even though communism is retarded, both the USSR and Nazi Germany were moving in this direction more over time. Stalin basically had MPD when it comes to communism. But the Nazis were quite explicit about how they felt about plutocracy and what they intended for the German nation. And despite American-tier shilling for capitalism, it wasn't capitalist. And again, the Nazis were only in power for less than a decade. Could you turn the corrupt, degenerate Weimar Republic into a Socialist paradise in 10 years? If you're going to nitpick like an autist, good luck finding a pure capitalist society either. No society in human history was 100% Socialist or capitalist. By the same token claiming that welfare = Socialism is equally retarded.

Actually communism does exist. In America, ironically. We have systems of hippie communes organized around it, though they do trade with the outside community to help fund the venture.

How do you know capitalism works if it never existed? Same argument. Just as little a point.

Semantics and logical fallacies: The tripfag

Sweden... North Korea.... China... USSR

The closest thing was POSSIBLY Nestor Makhno's Ukrainian Free Territory, other than that I would call all the other systems red fascism. And yes, I have studied fascism and understand what it entails both practically and philisophically

>Portugal
>leftypol
É você, Henrique

Transnistria -:^)

I know, but Stalin was the one that virtually created the USSR as we know it today.

> both the USSR and Nazi Germany were moving in this direction more over time

Claimed to be moving.

> it wasn't capitalist.

Nazi germany was capitalist, bro. No arguing with that. The socialist wing left the party early with Strasser. After that the Nazi economic policy was gearing up for war disgised with some populist slogans.

>Could you turn the corrupt, degenerate Weimar Republic into a Socialist paradise in 10 years?

No, they managed to create a dystopia, much like the one some Sup Forums tards roleplay with the "Bernie wins 2016 elections" Threads.

I advice you to read this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Reich_Trilogy

It's very good.

>good luck finding a pure capitalist society either.

This is literally no true scotsman. A economic system is either capitalism or it isn't capitalist.

>How do you know capitalism works if it never existed? Same argument. Just as little a point.

I'm not commie, nor am i defending communism. Stop moving the goalposts

So the workers owning the means of production is "semantics"?

pic related

Avoiding a definition is one of socialism's greatest assets
People like you are able to dodge criticism by putting lipstick on a pig
Fuck off, shill. We're onto your tricks.

France

Why wont you respond to my post , portugalbro?

>Respond to the not true scotsman with another fallacy
Read the sticky

I think its necessary to discern between state socialism (and subsequent state capitalism) and libertarian socialism. Communism in theory should be instated by the latter route, I do not think Marx would approve of any country created in his name to date

Não amigo. Não sou um comunista.

Mine is simple. The workers own the means of production. Find me one.

lol

Because i don't know enough about you state. It probably fits the criteria, but you and i know what is the point of this thread

>I'm a shill
>I know, let me make a tripcode with lefty/pol/ on it. Surely they won't discover me

>Mine is simple. The workers own the means of production. Find me one.
That's stupid and disingenuous and you know it.
That's the stated goal of every "socialist" nation ever, regardless of whether or not it was achieved.
The problem with socialism is not that its utopian endgame isn't desirable, but rather that it's impossible. The state inflation occurring in the "transition" becomes permanent, resulting in all the labels you're dolling out to the failures.
The lack of pure socialist nations after so many attempts is a mark of systematic failure, not the deluded hopefulness you view it as.

>That's stupid and disingenuous and you know it.

What? It's the central tenet of socialism. Just like you don't call a state capitalism if it does not allow for capital accumulation.

>The problem with socialism is not that its utopian endgame isn't desirable, but rather that it's impossible. The state inflation occurring in the "transition" becomes permanent, resulting in all the labels you're dolling out to the failures.

>again with this shit

I don't care wether socialism is practible or not. Or if it is a utopic retarded concept. It does not belong itt.

>The lack of pure socialist nations after so many attempts is a mark of systematic failure

I don't see why.

And i am not a socialist. I am still a capitalist

>I know, but Stalin was the one that virtually created the USSR as we know it today.
Like I said, Stalin basically had MPD. He was two different people. One really tried to be communist, the other wasn't concerned.

>Claimed to be moving.
And did.

>Nazi germany was capitalist, bro. No arguing with that.
You can be wrong all you fucking want. Doesn't bother me.

>The socialist wing left the party early with Strasser.
Don't give me that bullshit.

research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb64.htm

>After that the Nazi economic policy was gearing up for war disgised with some populist slogans.
Yeah, exactly. War. War got in the way of making Germany what the Nazis wanted. And yet, they STILL used Socialist policies to trounce every nation on Earth technologically. That's one of the strengths of Socialism - it's not a slave to profit.

>No, they managed to create a dystopia
Ah, so I see you're a retarded faggot. Taking a crippled, degenerate, jew-riddled cesspool from economic and social collapse to the most technologically advanced society on Earth was nothing, huh?

>This is literally no true scotsman.
No it's not. It's reality. I realize on Sup Forums you kind of have to tweak your speech to radicalism to get a point across, but let's be fucking realistic here. Most societies are mixed economically and even government form-wise. That's not a fucking debate. The Nazis were Socialists because they fucking flat out said they were, defended Socialist principles and were actively engaged in stripping away the power of capitalism from their society. They used capitalist policies also. I can deal with this because I'm not a kneejerk moron. The same way that the Nordic countries are capitalist NOT fucking Socialist, although they're more Socialist than say America, who thinks that anything further left than a corporatist theocracy is basically communism. When you bitch in absolutes, you don't get much accomplished.

>A economic system is either capitalism or it isn't capitalist.
No. Not really. Again, go find me a pure system of either. Good fucking luck. Nominally yes, you can say this country is either communist or Socialist or capitalist or whatever. But it's sort of judgment call based on the intentions and actions of the nation in question. The Nazis and USSR both WANTED to be Socialist and tried to become so. The USSR failed because nation state sized communism is literally impossible. The Germans failed because they lost the war within a decade of coming to power and literally never got the chance to put their intentions fully into power. But I will say that even if they did, I doubt they would have gone full Socialist. They almost certainly would have retained capitalist elements, because that's just who they were. They were still Socialists. Although, I think eventually they would have turned out almost exactly like a lot of modern European countries have now.

>I'm not commie, nor am i defending communism. Stop moving the goalposts
I don't give a shit what you are and I'm not moving anything.

>research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb64.htm
>german-propaganda

See? Stop being retarded. You honestly believe in propaganda? You still think Iraq war was because of mass dstruction weopans? Or are you are one of those retards that thonk Germany invaded Poland because it was protecting Germans in Polish territory?

>Stalin basically had MPD

Source?

>War got in the way of making Germany what the Nazis wanted.

War was what Nazis wanted for germany. A state of perpetual struggle.

>STILL used Socialist policies

define socialist policies

>crippled

Because of german imperialism

>degenerate
>muh Fellz

> jew-riddled cesspool
kek, jews were virtually banned from top positions in Weimar. Also jews had a larger proportion of frontline soldiers in WW1 then Germans. German jews were integrated in german society.

>e to the most technologically advanced society on Earth was nothing

kek. Germany was behind Great Britain in pretty much everything during the war. After the initial panic, USSR was also on top of everything compared to germany.

You do know that virtually every nobel olaureates and future nobel laureated left germany shortly after nazi takover?

>So the workers owning the means of production is "semantics"?
No, it's not. But how the workers "own" those means IS semantics. If there's no or very little private property and the state owns it all, then the workers kind of do own them, now don't they? That seems like a gyp, but it can be technically accurate. And in a nation state, that's about as close as you're ever likely to come because large societies can generally not rely on simple governing structures. How the hell are workers' guilds supposed to decide to go to war effectively? Who creates the strategy? War is absolutely not the sort of thing you want a fuckton of chefs involved in, because that soup sours really fucking quick.

I do agree with you that the means of production have to be owned by the workers (somehow) for it to technically be Socialism. In practice, it just doesn't tend to go down the way most people think it would.

>Avoiding a definition is one of socialism's greatest assets
You're thinking of capitalism, retard.

>People like you are able to dodge criticism by putting lipstick on a pig
You mean like how sociopaths like you claim it's not "real capitalism" when the rich corporatocrat cunts own the government. Get the fuck out, you hypocrite.

>libertarian socialism
Eww gross get out of here.

>I do not think Marx would approve of any country created in his name to date
Well yeah lol people tend to not approve of things that fail.

>That's stupid and disingenuous and you know it.
Actually, no he's right. That's one of the basics of the textbook definition of Socialism. Being an American, you're just fucking retarded and stuffed to bursting with propaganda so you literally don't know the definitions of the shit you're arguing about.
>Hurr durr da dictionary is wrong! Listen to this definition of Socialism I got from Ronald Reagan and Fox News instead

>Most societies are mixed economically and even government form-wise
True

>The Nazis were Socialists because they fucking flat out said they were

And if a man says he is a women then he his a women? And North Korea is a Democratic Republic?

> were actively engaged in stripping away the power of capitalism from their society.

wat? Big bussiness thrived under Nazi Germany.

>more Socialist

what do you mean with this?

You must be so frustrated m8

So many people think socialism = government spending

Im a Fascist but I still take time to educate myself on opposing politics.

There is no "pure". Capitalism encompasses a multitude of systems with some things in common, like private property, capital accumulation... Wether it's free markek, mixed economy, state capitalism it doesn't matter, because they are all capitalist.

>The Nazis and USSR both WANTED to be Socialist and tried to become so.

Claimed too. And all stop trying. What steps did USSR make to give the workers the means of production?

>The USSR failed because nation state sized communism is literally impossible.
>again

>literally never got the chance to put their intentions fully into power.

But they did. They entered in war agaisnt virtually all their neighboors.

>They were still Socialists.

No, the socialist wing left with strasser

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser

Burundi

>The problem with socialism is not that its utopian endgame isn't desirable, but rather that it's impossible.
You can claim that. But by the same token libertarianism is also impossible. Personally, I would feel most comfortable with a partly Socialist state and ZERO capitalism except for possibly trade with external communities, so I'm by no means a Socialism purist.

>The lack of pure capitalist nations after so many attempts is a mark of systematic failure
Mote, meet beam. Find me a pure capitalist nation.

>See? Stop being retarded. You honestly believe in propaganda?
Words and deeds, faggot. I'm going to start calling America communist now because who listens to politicians? That means I'm right because propaganda. That's how retarded you sound.

>Source?
History? How about the fact that he spoke on how anti-semitism carried the death penalty, then purged kikes? That's ONE example.

>War was what Nazis wanted for germany. A state of perpetual struggle.
No it isn't, you retarded shit. Now who's eating up propaganda? The Nazis knew that the communists literally wanted to take over the world, and having survived jewish communists already in THIER OWN COUNTRY they knew this was unacceptable. They geared up for war because they knew damned well the Soviets were bringing it whether they wanted it or not. This claim that Germans started WWII is bullshit Allied propaganda and ignores literally every facet of pre-war history and politics. You literally have to have an elementary school education on the subject to believe Germany was the aggressor. But since the Soviets said it and what people say doesn't count, I guess it was lies, right?

>If there's no or very little private property and the state owns it all, then the workers kind of do own them, now don't they?

If you are naive, then yes. But if you have a head maade to think, you would know the workers surely did not owned the means of production

> but it can be technically accurate.
And tecnhically the queen of england is the head of state of dozens of countries. Techincalities is not what socialism is.

>How the hell are workers' guilds supposed to decide to go to war effectively? Who creates the strategy? War is absolutely not the sort of thing you want a fuckton of chefs involved in, because that soup sours really fucking quick.
>again

> In practice, it just doesn't tend to go down the way most people think it would.
>again

>I do agree with you that the means of production have to be owned by the workers (somehow) for it to technically be Socialism.

So name me one. This is all i am asking from this thread

>>Hurr durr da dictionary is wrong! Listen to this definition of Socialism I got from Ronald Reagan and Fox News instead
lel

Sometimes, yes, it's frustating to answer the same question in the same way.

>Burundi
Teel me more. I find it hard that niggers managed to create a socialist nation

>define socialist policies
How about I let Nazis do it:

"We don't say to the rich 'Give to the poor', we say 'German people, help each other'. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there's someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman."
~ Adolf Hitler

The germans weren't moneygrubbing capitalist sociopaths. They hated what out of control rampant plutocracy had done to the West and they'd seen the corruption it causes. They spoke out against the dangers of the behaviors of the rich and the destructive influence of capitalism on multiple occasions. They were still Socialists. They just wanted a more mixed approach. Just like Americans are capitalists who use some Socialist elements. They're still capitalists. Deal with it.

>Because of german imperialism
Stop being an insufferable faggot. Your ignorance of history and spewing of allied lies is getting irritating. Go read a book, faggot.

>kek. Germany was behind Great Britain in pretty much everything during the war.
>denying reality
I think I see the problem. You're a fucking kike. By the way, make sure you thank Adolf Hitler for that space program and environmentalism (which you kikes have mostly destroyed at this point).

>You do know that virtually every nobel olaureates and future nobel laureated left germany shortly after nazi takover?
Oh my god, effete scientists don't want to live in a warzone, color me shocked! What kind of an argument is this? The scientists that did stay made Germany, again and I shouldn't have to keep repeating this, the most technologically advanced nation on Earth. And for your information, the UK still exists because Adolf Hitler didn't WANT to destroy it. They tried to make peace with the UK multiple times, but Churchill was literally the antichrist and wanted to genocide the German people even before the war. If Hitler had been as bloodthirsty as Churchill, the UK wouldn't exist.

>Words and deeds, faggot. I'm going to start calling America communist now because who listens to politicians? That means I'm right because propaganda. That's how retarded you sound.

I don't understand what you wrote here.

>How about the fact that he spoke on how anti-semitism carried the death penalty, then purged kikes?

Huh?

>The Nazis knew that the communists literally wanted to take over the world
Source? And i tell you this is a Nazi propaganda myth

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

>and having survived jewish communists already in THIER OWN COUNTRY

The vast majority of communists parrty leaders were german. And so did the rfollowers. The majority of german jewish leaned conservative/apolitical

>This claim that Germans started WWII is bullshit
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, bro, now this is kind of pathetic. So were the czechs that inavded germany, signed a agreement, and then broke it later and invaded germany again? Were the Lithuanians that issued a ultimatum to Germany? Were The Polish that issued a ultimatum to germany to give up a large part of their territory?

>You literally have to have an elementary school education on the subject to believe Germany was the aggressor.
lel, you don't know how retarded you sound. That documentary is wildly innacurate, you know?

North Korea

>And if a man says he is a women then he his a women? And North Korea is a Democratic Republic?
And if you claim you're not a retard, why should I believe you?

>wat? Big bussiness thrived under Nazi Germany.
Yes, the Germans weren't economic purists. Although I wish they had been. Nazi Germany may still be around if they were. But they never would have let those businesses prey upon the population like say America does. The Nazis would have been fucking APPALLED by our healthcare system, for example.

>what do you mean with this?
How is this unclear?

>Capitalism mixed with something else is pure capitalism
First: no. Second, exactly. You're proving my point. Stop bitching about a lack of pure Socialism when there's no pure capitalism either.

>Claimed too.
You need to stop this because it's getting old and you're not even right.

>And all stop trying.
That's not a yes or no for the USSR OR Nazi Germany. The USSR became less communist over time but was still communist, and the Nazis probably never intended to be pure Socialists anyway. But I can't say I'm impressed that the "degree" of Socialism in Nazi Germany lessening over time. They actually pioneered many policies that modern Americans scream about being "Socialist".

>But they did. They entered in war agaisnt virtually all their neighboors.
Who are you talking about? The USSR? This was explained already.

>No, the socialist wing left with strasser
Believe what you want. You're just being annoying now. Your trip says it all, really. You came here with an agenda and you'll be damned if you're averted from it.

>If you are naive, then yes
It's not naivite, it's simply the reality of the situation. Claiming that a country is only actually Socialist if workers unions are running it, then claiming no other way can be classified as workers owning the means of production is just being a child.

>"We don't say to the rich 'Give to the poor', we say 'German people, help each other'. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there's someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman."

Fascism.

>They were still Socialists.
Yet they didn't put the means of production in worker hands, They also destroyed the unions almost completely.

>Socialist elements

What socialist elements?

>Stop being an insufferable faggot. Your ignorance of history and spewing of allied lies is getting irritating. Go read a book, faggot.

Didn't germany declared war on France, and Invaded Belhium and Luxembourg after they declared neutrality?

>Go read a book, faggot.
I am, the ones i linked

>>>/dictionary/

In what way was germany more advanced then Britain? (well, i give you rocketry)

>And if you claim you're not a retard, why should I believe you?

Lol

>But they never would have let those businesses prey upon the population like say America does.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

> Claiming that a country is only actually Socialist if workers unions are running it

No, only if the owrkers own the means of production. Nothing else, nothing more

>And tecnhically the queen of england is the head of state of dozens of countries.
Correct. And she also OWNS a fuckton of the land in those nations. So she's not as powerless as people try to make her out to be. There's actually a good video on this:

youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

>So name me one. This is all i am asking from this thread
I just did and you ignored it. If the state owns all property, then by definition all property is publicly owned - ergo the workers own the means of production. That is literally the workers GENUINELY AND TECHNICALLY owning the means of production. It just doesn't satisfy you because it's not the image you want of Socialism.

>Sometimes, yes, it's frustating to answer the same question in the same way.
Boy you're fucking telling me.

>I don't understand what you wrote here.
Of course you don't because you're just being argumentative. A person's words matter. So do their deeds. When a person says "I'm trying to do X", then they do X, their words reinforce their deeds. The Nazis made MASSIVE changes to the structure of German society in the direction of Socialism - you're just ignoring them because you want to claim they were capitalist. Fucking welcome to Sup Forums. This place is truly cancer sometimes.

You know next to nothing. Workers or the public don't own factories, companies, or offices in those countries. An accurate example would be Tito's Yugoslavia or Chile before Pinochet.

>Source? And i tell you this is a Nazi propaganda myth
What a stupid faggot.

"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty."
That's your boy Stalin there. The EXPLICIT intentions of the communist party were to take over the world. You retarded cunts make me fucking sick trying to claim this wasn't the case when communists OPENLY FUCKING STATED IT REGULARLY THEN DID IT AS SOON AS THEY COULD.
>Hurr fucking durr I'm fucking retarded. Communists only both claimed they were consumate internationalists who wanted to spread communism over the entire Earth on multiple occasions then did everything in their power to achieve exactly that after the Nazis were removed from the equation. Communist designs on world conquest are a myth!
FUCKING. LITERALLY. RETARDED.

Now I have other shit to do.