|
I mean, there's Sweden, well generally Europe is pretty socialist. |
|
demoticoJoin Date: 2009-07-08
Post Count: 136 |
Have have you ever heard of a successful capitalist country? |
|
RoDuck3DJoin Date: 2011-09-24
Post Count: 11334 |
this relates to music because punk rock |
|
|
RoDuck3DJoin Date: 2011-09-24
Post Count: 11334 |
lol cuba before fidel was one of the most powerful nations of the americas
but that was BEFORE |
|
|
"Have have you ever heard of a successful capitalist country?"
you're probably living in one buddy boy |
|
|
"Viva Fidel!"
LOL look its a kid from 8th grade who has no idea what hes talking about and thinks hes gonna look cool for saying that he likes castro |
|
|
|
"anarchism seems p cool."
youre joking rite |
|
|
People need to learn, that life isn't fair |
|
|
|
"Wrong forum much?"
What forum should it be posted in? Its dealing with real life leaders and global chat seems to have vanished. Plus all these ro rap scrubs post off topic rp posts so at this point nothing is on topic anyways. |
|
|
You cannot argue that there has been a successful socialist nation or capitalist nation, truth is there's never been a successful nation at all. All nations fail at multiple points on multiple levels, because humanity as a whole sucks. Most capitalist nations are far better off than most if not all socialist ones because socialism is impractical system that cannot be maintained, because is the people own everything together, the natural instinct is to appoint people to watch over the collective. On the other hand, capitalism leads to over-competition and monopolies, but still, generally stable economies. But, in the grand scheme of things, humans are incapable of achieving perfect society, a civilization cannot be perfect if the people living in it are fundamentally imperfect themselves. |
|
|
Well that's pretty much my view on the whole thing ender.Nothing works because we're humans, and humans can't do diddly squat without it breaking apart. |
|
|
Glad to see someone agrees, people have a habit of disregarding or discrediting the truth. |
|
MattakaeJoin Date: 2009-05-01
Post Count: 22522 |
We shall instill a Proletariat Dictatorship and seize the wealth from the Bourgeoisie! |
|
|
congrats op, you dont know wqhat your talking about |
|
|
Freedom and democracy does not win wars,short mind. |
|
demoticoJoin Date: 2009-07-08
Post Count: 136 |
It is good, to see that you haven't any knowledge of economics, and social policy. I will guess, that you're in the United States. I will make these comments, quite clear.
The United States, had adopted many socialist aspects, to keep their country afloat, this is due to working class movements of the earlier 20th century, and of late. If you will please move your attention to President Fraklin D. Roosevelt, he was rumored to be socialist, but that did not stop him from, reparing the economy, and bring the United States to the height of it's power. |
|
|
"there has never been a successful country" i quit reading after that |
|
|
"It has come to my attention that the increasing support of socialist ideas of Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Mikhail Gorbachev."
duuuude
those are "communists", not socialists.
socialism is giving private ownership but with government control over several factors of a citizen's life. it's the middle ground between capitalism and communism. it generally involves government aid and projects to help the people. the main downside is that it's not a sustainable model by itself, it needs something (like high taxation) to back it up.
socialist countries are nordic countries like sweden, denmark, norway, finland, etc. even the usa is partially socialist, though we still keep our capitalist roots.
communism is public ownership of everything. it starts as a worker's revolution on the rich capitalist upper class to bring a dictator to power, who keeps the nation in order and ensures a smooth transition to a completely classless society. there is no *true* communist country, but there's a reason for that: the very concept of communism is based on flawed assumptions of human nature and can never work effectively. even dismissing all of that, after the revolution the dictator "representing the people" almost always takes the power for himself and instead establishes a totalitarian dictatorship. lenin was the only true communist dictator, and trotsky's policies would have followed a similar path, but of course stalin took power and trotsky instead got an ice pick to the face.
so while none of these people were true communists, communism would never work in a society. and socialism is not communism.
learn to world history bro. |
|
|
"hey, u ever heard of that successful socialist country?"
look up "nordic model"
"Have have you ever heard of a successful capitalist country?"
most of europe in the early 1900's, america too
yeah, human rights sucked, but those countries were in great states economically |
|
|
Every person has his own beliefs. Please don't force them to ruin what they believe in, And STOP PUTTING USELESS COMMENTS... Goodday, Gentlemen. |
|
demoticoJoin Date: 2009-07-08
Post Count: 136 |
The ultimate goal of Socialism is communism, meaning; Communism, is Socialist. The economic successes of capitalist states in the early 20th century, and present are built on the back of child labor, slave labor, and poorly paid workers. --- The "Scandinavian model of Socialism", I agree is successful, but they're the closest states to achieveing a communist state, so, you're defeating, your own point by mentioning the Scandinavian states as successful socialist states. Your argument that,Vladimir Lenin was a "communist" shall be debunked in the following, he had abolished political parties, purged his opposition, and established a elitist government system, therefore, his actions oppose that of Marxist ideology. In Marxism, it is written to each his needs, taxation is not a need, capital is a concept only procieved for momentary gain, therefore creating a class system, therefore, in a ideal Communist state, there is no capital, so taxation of capital, is non-existant.
I'd like to take this to a personal matter, if you wish to be taken seriously in a debate, please, use grammar. |
|
|