List of Socialist countries

Notice something
Majority are now shitholes and now have turned to Brutal Capitalism as socialism has failed them
Would Holla Forums live in any of them?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldman–Mahalanobis_model
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

We have this exact same thread every week, what's up with that?

Three of these achieved their revolution indepedently.

The first is Russia - Which did not give the workers the means of production, and thus was not socialist.

The second is China - Which did not give the workers the means of production, and thus was not socialist.

The third is Burkina Faso, which while only partly giving the workers the means of profuction was a whole lot better than the shit that came after the coup.

When will you learn? When they're doing okay they're socialist then when they collapse a complete 180 of opinion occurs and then they never were socialist.

Would you live in Somalia or the outskirts of Detroit?

Are you implying that these countries were better under their former governments?

Do you think Russia was better off under the Tzar? That China was better off under Chiang Kai-shek? That India was better off under British colonial rule? That Ethiopia was better off under the Negusa Nagast?

Even then, it should be noted that all these places were only ideologically socialist, not structurally socialist. Even then, many of these places' actual ideological adherence to socialism was iffy at best.

Notice something

If you read any leftist theory you would know that Communism is an eternal idea, that because of it's very impossibility has been the unrealized Utopian dream of every society.

In Marxism Communism because the dream of Capitalism, because Communism would inevitably dissolve the differences and contradictions of Capitalism under the creation of new categories.

Therefore while Socialism has been tried numerous times, and has failed, this does not make Communism itself an idea of the past. The very conditions of how Capitalism functions makes the re-appearance of socialism again and again, as history goes in circles.

Another possible name could be "list of countries in which it is possible to have socialism without all the rest of the world having socialism"

...

Why is the USA not inlcuded on the map?

Lists only contains countries that constitutionally proclaims itself socialist. It's not a socialist country just because the current ruling party is leftist. Just like what happened in these socialist countries failure of economy can lead to right wing governments getting in power.

I remember a few years before Venezuela was a socialist success. Now it's not socialist. Nordic countries were called socialist until their leaders told to fuck off and not to call then socialist. Now it sen Bolivia is the new socialist utopia for liblels

lol wtf

Still the fact that actual socialist countries was able to secure power in these countries would be a proof that it's adherence is more than what westerners have

For anyone who's curious to know the current socialist countries see this list
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
I already live in Free to Poo Republic. I will be happy to welcome comrades who wants to stay.

It's been spammed so much that it can be now considered as such

where tho

by liberal fags, maybe

Here

Just the other day I was discussing about failed socialist countries /int/and someone said Bolivia is a successful socialist state
Now just type Bolivia into Google and you will eventually come across a link (Almost always written this year) Bolivia is an example of socialist success.
The problem I see with this is eventually when Bolivia economy makes a turn as it will considering the unpredictable nature of economy we leftis will be blamed for these stupid liblels stupidity.

I've half thought about going to join the Zapatistas in mexico.

Tell me all about how India is, or ever was, legitimately socialist.

Well if I just type in Bolivia, I just get a lot of futbol or news regarding border disputes.

You're right if I explicitly search for "Bolivia Socialist", many pages calling it both socialist and success out of basically nowhere.

The Left has never thought Venezuela was socialist, it was mostly praised for it's anti-imperialist policies.

The Left has never thought Nordic countries were socialist. They may have been, in the past, examples of how a country can benefit from more social economics, but that never made them socialist.

You're confusing SocDems with the Left.

Oh, I'm sorry, you're even more retarded. You're confusing the Left for liberals. Liberals are anti-socialist by definition, fam.

Lolno, they're not socialists just becacuse they have a president who wouldn't mind implementing it(because he's not going to do anything about it)

For the first 40 years Congress party, the party that led the independence movementa Democratic socialist party ruled the country without any opposition. In fact until 1991 they had a socialist economy similar to how socialism worked in democratically elected States.

Read Zizek

A socialist party led the independence movement ruled them unprecedented until 2000s. Followed a socialist economy with Marxist economics as base until then. Now that party has lost considerable following and everyone there hates socialism except for in may be bengal and kerala area.

Well, at least you confirmed that you're retards.


Surely you'll agree that the Left is anti-capitalist since liberalism failed to bring about the ideals of the French Revolution.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldman–Mahalanobis_model
You proved yourself to be retard.I will let you have the last reply you are autistically craving for. Don't worry go forth I won't call you a retard again

I would have lived in yugoslavia happily tbh

No it's not socialist nor Marxist because it failed to produce results and got elected out because of incompetence. Socialist parties are always competent. They are just people pretending to be Marxists.

It doesn't fit the definition of socialism by Marx or any significant socialist thinkers.

Not all leftists are anti capitalist, heck not even all Socialists are staunch anti capitalists. Leftist is just a general name gke people who belong to the left of political spectrum which includes liberals, communists, Democratic socialists, etc

Nothing fits the definition of Socialism nor Marxism by any Socialist out Marxist leaders

Yeah, because we haven't had any socialism yet.

I already do.

Which one?

That's not how it works, retard. The economic plan wasn't even remotely attempting to abolish capitalism or establish socialism.

No, the Left hasn't been pro-capitalist since the Jacobins.
Then they're not socialists.
Those are centrists. Centre and centre-left respectively.

Three major countries I can see from that list
All of them are now considered possible candidates for becoming the next superpower. Notice something OP. All of them started from the lowest point. Notice how fast they have developed ZOP.

Hi FBI!
ex-yugo

I posted this in another thread, but it will be useful here too.

Socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production

"lol but what does that even mean xD?"

In any given society, you're going to have three basic groups of people:
Productive Labor - The people who directly produce the goods and services society needs though their work, they must necessarily produce more than they themselves use, creating a surplus
Unproductive Labor - People who's work is not directly involved in the production of socially necessary goods and services (eg - soldiers, lawyers, firemen, police, etc)
The Ruling Class - The people who receive the surplus created by productive labor and decide how it should be used and distributed.

Socialism is a relation of production where that third group has been abolished and its functions distributed to the former two groups, with special deference to productive labor. It isn't the state owning anything, if the relation of production hasn't changed. It isn't the ruling party calling themselves "socialist" if they haven't changed the basic relation of production. Only when that essential relation of production has been altered can a system legitimately call itself socialist.

Liberals were praising Venezuela because they like handouts. Most people were pretty skeptical of their government

...

most of those places were shitholes before socialism

socialism has an appeal for the poor, therefore poorer countries are more likely to become socialist

As long as it's not world-wide, it's not socialism: it's just a revolution.
Socialism is the outcome, no one said it would happen "instantly".