What was the most successful socialist society and why?

well there is Yugoslavia, before things really really went to shit due to X and Y reasons unrelated to socialism, they had a special role in politics and a good standard of living

The countries that are socialist can only afford to do it because the United States funds NATO. They don't have to invest much into the military. Also they tax the shit out of people.

They have lower GDP than our poorest state, which I believe is Georgia.

Socialism is bad. Some social programs within a capitalistic society to help people improve their lives and become independent.

It's never ever good to have to depend on the government because that gives them to much control over you

THAT STATEMENT IS IGNORANT AND ABSURD.

Your entire existence is absurd you retarded tripfaggot. Literally can't have a single thread without you Chris Chan tier autists chiming in.

Kerala.

Western Europe isn't socialist.

Clearly it didn't work for very long.

No.

If you're a Prussia fanboy you can make a case for yourself though.

North Korea and Cuba aren't really comparable

So most successful = survives the longest?

No. Survives the longest and successful. Not barely surviving.

1945-80 isn't bad

Well North Korea is barely surviving, they had one of the most recent famines in Eurasia and their level of development is 3rd world tier.

>If you work it, you should control it.

Why?

>having to borrow money to sustain your "worker-owned industries" because they were economically inviable and then collapsing in a massive hyperinflationary economic crisis when you can't do it anymore is "unrelated to socialism"

But really Nazi Germany was probably the most successful. They were powerful. They were thriving until Churchill started a war.

Poland was stolen from them in ww1. Germans were being persecuted by polish. Austria wanted to be part of Germany.

Clearly it wasn't successful. Socialism/ communism can't compete with capitalism.

things that are socialist in modern society
>weekend
>minimum wage
>safety nets
>public transport
>fire fighters
>police
>health care (most countries)
>education(some countries)
>military
>taxes

Ok Bernie fan. It's within a capitalistic society. Semantics. More isn't always better.

>it's another "statism is socialism you can't convince me otherwise" episode

>It's within a capitalistic society.
that's the thing

you need both to succeed, you can't have a good police if it isn't 'planned' in terms of organization same goes for military, but not for other things

it's just tools you apply for different things, to achieve the outcomes you need

Government-owned public utilties ≠ socialism
Worker's rights ≠ socialism

Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production, either through worker's self management or state ownership. Things that are socialist in modern society: National oil companies, consumer cooperatives, communal lands in Third World countries.

>everything that isn't 100% ancap muh free market bixnood mofugga is socialism

>National oil companies

no

It's social ownership of the means of production, bro. It's certainly have a better claim at being "socialist" than fire fighters.

How is state ownership social ownership?

If it collapses in a couple of decades, you can't call it succesful

Probably the Soviet Union.

No, a national oil company is clearly government ownership of the means of production.

Because when something it's public-owned, it can be understood as belonging to everyone in a given society.

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, that's how it's presented by most government. That's why nationalization of oil resources in Third World countries is always presented as "the people" taking control over it's resources.

Not him, but that's obviously propaganda.

No, that's how it's literally perceived by people with a tradition of government-owned companies. It's why privatization is so opposed, it's interpreted as selling the wealth of the "people".

>but it's propaganda that makes them see it this way

During the privatization drive from the 80s to the 00s, all propaganda was pro-privatization. Didn't stop people from seeing government-owned companies as owned by them.

I'm saying it's propaganda, because it being owned "by the people", is not what happens.

The reality is that the bureaucratic elite owns it, and decides where the money goes.

The Incan empire was a socialist state.

It had a big state who owned the means of production.

The distribution of land and property was as follow:

One part is used for the religious cult.

One part is for the Inca.

The rest is for the population, of this part nobody it's the owner, the land and resources are distributed by the Inca (who plays the role of the state).

The inca guaranteed bread and security, in the reconstruction of Cuzco for example, they first built the houses and then they give them to the citizens (centralized planning).

They had a goverment officials and bureaucracy, that took care of all of the aspects of the citizens life and of the public space.

>Source:
Alvaro Garcia Linera, Hacia el gran Ayllu universal.

The same happens in every single other instance of "worker's self management". Robert Michels discovered that 100 years ago and still no one managed to disprove it.

>Alvaro Garcia Linera

That guy is kind of based. Now, I'm anti-communist, but I have to admit that the socialist government in Bolivia is a lot less retarded than the ones in Venezuela, Argentina and even Brazil. And a lot of that is because of this guy.

You can't be socialist with a hereditary ruling class, sweetie

Shit so I actually OWN all the American nukes?

Nazi Germany

It wasn't that hereditary.

It's complicated but the Inca itself wasn't a blood relative in most of the cases, he just wasn't elected.

There was a ruling class I'll give you that, but it was more of a socialist monarchy.

Linera goes into great deep about the community system, Ayllu is a term for community it represents the sum of the habitants including wildlife, and it was the ultimate goal of pre-colombian societies in the Andes, as long as the Ayllu is ok, we are all ok.

The Incas translated this into a complex net of bureocracy and trade, when every tribe that became part of the empire was under the protection of the empire, and regulated by empire laws, this included domestic laws, there was no property laws besides everything belong to everyone, but misuse was punished.

One important example was marriage, you could have as many wifes as you were able to maintain, if you wanted the extra work that was your and hers problem.

There was also a great deal of mixing and migration, in a cementery in Chile they found different graves from different cultures, from the same period of time, this reflected the way the Incas organized society.

Unlike the Aztecs the Incas were well regarded in the anexed territories and ruled by road building instead of war and terror.

>Priest class
>Socialist
Wew

The USSR obviously.

But we can do better.

Economically it was working just fine.

Nationalist shitters just ruined everything yet again for muh heritage.

Cuba.
Shit. okay, stop laughing and hear me out for a second: They get a lot of flak and maaaaybe are somewhat of a meme, but at least they are still going on.
Hell, Cuba is older than some of you. When it comes to socialist states, you don't pick a good one, you pick the least worse one. The least worse just happens to be Cuba, that's what.

HAHA OH WOW

>take ginormous loans from dem evil western capitalists
>run your entire economy on said loans accumulating gargantuan debt
>the west doesn't ask them to repay because they're one of the few socialist countries opposed to the USSR
>suddenly USSR collapses
>"Yeah Mr. Yugoslav, about those loans ..."
>*country collapses*

Why not?

This is Pre-Marx socialism, it's about distribution of property and labour, not about atheism or spirituality.

Goverment jobs were really hard and demanding, and it didn't give you many privileges besides what everybody else had.

The state was about maintaining infrastructure.

The priest class dealed with they're own problems and it was more dedicated to public events.

There's even this hard to believe legend that claims that one Inca was forced to ban written lenguague to prevent social conflicts, this will be like eliminating the internet cause it has made more harm than good.

D
P
R
K

Yugoslavia broke because of ethnic tensions, not the economy

Shit economy tends to fuel ethnic tensions. See: Austria-Hungary, Weimar Germany, Russia, etc.

>Germans gives ultimatum to Poland for territory and reparations and Poland refuses
>It's Churchills fault
???

>Germans give Czechoslovakia ultimatum about Sudetenland
>Czechoslovaks oblige and give them Sudetenland
>apparently this isn't enough for Hitler who gobbles up entire Bohemia and Moravia

The same would happen in Poland.

Is Bolivia socialist?

You must be an American.

Sep.

Their on their way to failing? They do not have balance

cuba of course.

Bruh

Does that mean the kid you pay five bucks to mow your lawn is entitled to your 250$ lawn mower?

I wish I had Stirner to mow my lawn.

The supposed division between personal and private property is the worst meme ever.

Not socialist in the slightest

>the commons are socialism
Marx tried this ruse too. The commons are feudalism.

The Empire of Russia was socialist and lasted app. 300 years. And it only collapsed due to pressure from another more successful socialist country, the Empire of Germany.

This, it's existed for millions of years without problems.

Why is that?

No, it's pretty clear. Private is personal property that you loan to labourers to work on and have them compete with each other so that they overproduce and give you everything in excess of their sustenance.

If someone can work on your toothbrush and you can profit off them then that's private.

No because you're not selling the products of his labour. If you did he would be entitled to everything in excess of how much you would make if you had done it on your own, since he wouldn't involved himself in the production process if he couldn't do it better than you.

is this the new Veeky Forums maymay?

I'd say the Paris Commune, Revolutionary Catalonia, Free Territory of Ukraine, Seychelles, Barkina Faso under Sankara, and Rojava are pretty good

>Paris Commune
>A bunch of edgelords take advantage of their nation losing a war to terrorize Paris for 2 months blowing up as many museums and historical sites as they can get themselves organized to do so and then get BTFO by normal people as soon as the French recover from getting BTFO by Prussia.

wow such revolutionary how romantic glorious people's power. Literally ISIS-tier apes.

I wish dipshits like you could stick to a propaganda talking point.

The second this thread is over you'll be going back to calling universal healthcare, free education, UBI socialism. We all know it. But you have to lie anyway.

National Socialism isn't what you think. Socialism, at a bare bones definition, is workers ownership of the means of production. The Nazis did not have this. They just had very generous workers rights, welfare, etc.

>The Incan empire was a socialist state.
>It had a big state who owned the means of production.

b8

>Western Europe isn't socialist.

This post is the strawman to end all strawmen.

kill yourself jesus christ

It literally isn't.

None of those lasted for more than a decade

This is retarded and there are plenty of state owned enterprises that use a capitalistic mindset, oil companies being some of those

You have no idea what socialism means.
Just because a country "transforms" doesn't mean it's socialist. The third reich was mostly capitalist in it's economy.

Ehh they clearly had a plan on how to pay off that debt lol

The means of production are privately held.

Bernie Sanders welfare state =/= socialism

>Kerala
Lol no. State capitalist with economy being held up by wage slavery abroad.

Most Western Democracies.

>successful
>socialist

Wew, lad.

>A theory which was never proven nor substantiated with any reliable evidence

Yugoslavia had a high standard of living,plus those children look Mongolian

I've lived in Yugoslavia,the thing that broke the country apart was a total lack of national sense of unity.

>Poland has to agree to German extortion because I secretly fornicate on the pictures of Guderian

So was Yugoslavia,Her standards of living were comparable to the ones in Western Europe,her army was the fifth most powerful conventional army and she commanded global influence via the Non-aligned movement.

1945-1992

Your ability of deduction has no limits whatsoever,the country fell apart because of three main reasons:
1.She wasn't a puppet of neither the West or the East
2.She fielded a massive army and she could've offered a better alternative to all freshly liberated,post-soviet countries in eastern Europe
3.Her Non-Aligned movement was hindering the expansion of both blocs for far too long.

Obv the USSR, but in the grand scheme of things, it really wasn't that successful.

THE ONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS IS YOU.

WORKER OWNERSHIP OF MEANS OF PRODUCTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SOCIALISM, NOR IS THAT A REQUISITE FOR SOCIALISM.

>Just because a country "transforms" doesn't mean it's socialist.

AND?

>The third reich was mostly capitalist in it's economy.

1. A SOCIOPOLITCAL SYSTEM IS NOT PARTIALLY ANYTHING; IT IS SOMETHING TOTALLY, OR NOT AT ALL.

2. THE THIRD REICH WAS SOCIALISTIC, NOT CAPITALISTIC.

Yugoslavia had a shit economy. Trying to pin everything socialists did wrong on nationalists and capitalists is just pathetic.

predragrajsic.blogspot.fi/2014/03/the-economy-of-titos-yugoslavia.html explains pretty well how, no Yugoslavia didn't have a good economy.

I'll post some pics from the post

...