Has there ever been a successful economicly socialist country?

>However the USSR did make large relative gains during the first 2/3 of the 20th century

In a discussion with my Russian friend I have been told those gains would have occurred regardless of the Soviets being in control or not. The Russian empires economic growth and power terrified the Germans and apparently estimates said Russia could be a industrial threat to the German empire within 5-20 years.

So the growth may just have been something that would have occured even if the White army won

How are they fantasy?

>How are they fantasy?
if something doesn't exist in reality but you can still tell me all about it,
that is fantasy.

not a single one, not one. It always ends in horrible failure like Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, or if your really unlucky like North Korea or Cambodia.

Yet the meme of socialism refuses to die. People will not stop falling for the seductive lie.

BTW, I'm English and anyone who points to Europe isn't paying attention, all these counties are hopelessly bankrupt, they've borrowed more money than can be mathematically paid back, thus guaranteeing a collapse. Also Australia, Canada, NZ etc

I find socialist to be the most pig ignorant cunts that walk the face of this earth. They no nothing of history, economics, human psychology or just general common sense.

China. Europe.

If you want to use Marx's defintions nothing he said has actually existed. There is no country now or in the past where money is abolished and the means of production organised around need.

>they've borrowed more money than they can pay back

Welcome to the modern credit economy.

have you been to either?

I'm gonna guess your an American who has been nowhere.

In what possible way is Italy, Spain or Greece successful?

How the fuck was communist China in the 70's a good place to be. It's only since they brought in free markets in the 80's that everyone stopped being a peasant.

become part of the government. trade political favors for money. send bribes though NGOs or your law firm's subsidiaries' subsidiary. study chicago madigan (how to do it) or some clinton foundation stuff (specifically how not to do it). cover your tracks, use patsies, and offshore accounts. arrange bogus things like speaking stuff or appearances and charge a shit load. this will help you funnel money into your pocket. also enjoy life long jail if you're caught. they love to fuck corrupt people

Cambodia did it. They were a true communist paradise in the 1970's under Pol Pot.

I've been to both.

China is far from free market. 40% of enterprises by revenue are state owned IIRC. Yes, Italy, Spain Greece and the like are much better than many supposedly capitalists countries.

>China is far from free market. 40% of enterprises by revenue are state owned IIRC.

And they would be wealthier if it were 0%.
China's economic miracle, 100's of millions of people lifted out of poverty, came from introducing free market reforms, from accepting capitalism. The largest amount of people lifted out of poverty in history. It astounds me that leftists refuse to see this, yet whine about poverty.

>Italy, Spain Greece and the like are much better than many supposedly capitalists countries

WTF are you smoking bro? Those countries are going nowhere fast. Youth unemployment approaching 50%. My Euro friends here in NZ have told me of the hopelessness and depression there, most young people are NEETs, not 'cos they want to be, but 'cos socialism is turning their country into Cuba or Venezuela.

(pic relevant) Suggested reading material for all lefties.

Yeah that is bs. None of European Union is socialist. The Nordic countries are to an extent, but that is pretty much it. Germany is as much socialist as US is economically speaking, France is just idiotic and is neither. Italy is the Florida of Europe, but again not socialist. Again, Europe is not a fucking place politaccly speaking. Either you mean EU or the general location. China was a shit place until they opened up their markets. Soviet Union was always shit for the citizens.

Man yeah if you call fucking Zimbabwe a capitalist country you might have a point. But don't trhow Greece in here, they were lived literally on 50 euro a day cause of their stupid ass decisions. Athens looks like Detroit 90% except the tourist places.

>US is a SOCIALIST welfare state for making medical insurance mandatory!
>US is a SOCIALIST welfare state for having welfare and retirement for everyone!

>Other countries with socialized medicine, retirement and welfare AREN'T socialist welfare states because that would mean socialism is successful!

Are you retarded? Government doest own shit, it runs hospitals on tax money but that is because it is fucking cheaper than having a us system in place.

>Are you retarded?
I'm just laughing at the cognitive dissonance coming out of /pol/ and the American right.

We want to socialize medicine and suddenly we've got OP crying like a little girl about how socialism always fails.

Mention that lots of successful countries socialized medicine and the cockroaches crawl out of the paneling talking about no true scotsman, that's not real socialism.

pick one.

either socialized medicine isn't socialism
or
socialized medicine is socialism and works just fine for lots of countries.

nevermind the fact that the US has socialized most of its vital services hundreds of years before Veeky Forums existed.

No, the majority of people aren't completely useless and generate more profit from free markets than gov't grants (welfare, etc) There is a certain demographic of people that are trying to change this, though.

>generate more profit from free markets
when the live on roads they built and see doctors they paid to train, have police and fire services they hired and judges and lawyers they personally bankroll, when they repel invaders with a private army and navy they built and trained and equipped,
then you might have a point.

I think you don't really get my point. If you have healthcare managed by the government doesn't make it socialist.

No
Also source

>I think you don't really get my point.
I get your point, it's the same one I've been telling right wingers for the last 8 years straight.

it's just amusing that they deny the point in one context and try to force it as fact when the context turns against them.

No, it wouldn't. China's economic miracle was founded on state driven investment turning it into an export economy. Government monopolies on industries was a very big part of this, especially the steel, coal, banking and housing industry. If private companies were exclusively used you'd get a early 1900s China.

See Belarus, South Africa, Papa New Guinea, Chile.

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

See Scandinavia

t. uneducated american post

>people genuinely believe this
>people also think china is communist

This, Japan is also an example of a country taxing nearly 50% its wealthiest citizens, the quality of life prevails in many aspects. It's a bad example tho because of the ageing population and probably the country with the most debt.

>I find socialist to be the most pig ignorant cunts that walk the face of this earth.
This.

Im sorry but countries like france and belgium are way more socialist than nordic countries by tax rates

>all those retards that say Scandi countries are socialist
Welfare state =/= socialism

sweden?

...

no socialism != communism
a welfare state can be based on two things: social solidarity (in which case it's a socialism) or some lucky abundance of resource like oil.

Japan has a high quality of life (low crime, high communal trust) because it is nearly 100% homogenous. Political system really doesn't matter to them (horrible voter turnout, general political apathy, etc). People talk about how their aging population is a horrible thing, but the reality is that real GDP per capita is going up, available land per capita is going up, and they won't have to deal with an unproductive 3rd world welfare class as long as they hold strong on their immigration policy (which is basically: be a super productive white from a desirable country or get fucked).

Speaking from experience, a Japanese homeless tent village in the woods is cleaner and safer than any black neighborhood I've ever been through regardless of income. If the social norms of your society are garbage, that will be its state regardless of what political system you lay over it. That's why most European countries will be seeing a general downward trend over the next decades thanks to importing middle East trash.

I'm convinced socialism could only work in a society with good social norms and an average IQ of over 110, some countries come close, but again, are rapidly moving away thanks to immigration policies bringing in half retarded illiterates.

No. Socialism is not another word solidarity. It is a term that refers to the economic ideologies that seek to abolish private ownership. If you use the word socialism to mean something else, you are using it wrong.

Social democracy is the word that you are supposed to use to refer to the kind of system that is in place in Scandinavia and the rest of Western Europe.

>that seek to abolish private ownership
that's not exactly true now is it?
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production

when workers can freely hold shares of their own company in a democratic system i would say that's pretty much socialism.

>Social democracy is the word that you are supposed to use to refer to the kind of system that is in place in Scandinavia and the rest of Western Europe.
well in the modern european context that is the only socialism we can talk about really. classic socialism doesn't exist any more than classic liberalism.

>paying to go to the hospital
vs
>paying higher taxes so you dont have to pay to go to the hospital

same shit at the end of the day you are fucked if you arent born rich or get lucky to become rich

yes but in the first example you are more fucked if you are poor and need medical help and in the second you are more fucked if you are middle class but won't be needing the hospitals as much.

the rich won't care either way.

That's OK because objectively the poor are worth less to society, so should receive less of its resources. In fact most welfare recipients are lifetime net liabilities and are good candidates for free helicopter rides or gas chambers. Nobody gives a fuck what you feel you deserve, flip burgers, get burger flipper wages.

>That's OK because objectively the poor are worth less to society
and here is where you are totally wrong.
the poor are net spenders or consumers if you like. they don't save anything (which would be deflationary) they are the ideal citizen in this new economic system. also there is a fucking lot of them. usually more than 60% of the society is poor and nothing would be sustainable on the current level and prices without them. they are the ones that create most of the currency out there by getting into debt also.

i don't expect your stupid ass to understand this, but maybe when you get a bit older you will.

Swefag here, nordic "socialism" isn't really socialism the way americans imagine it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
>This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.
>According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model,
>"social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism.

The unspoken truth that makes it work is that the nordic countries all mostly contain one people, within each country. Each country has one population that share common values and ways of thinking, so very few people would exploit the system even if it was (which it is) possible. As soon as you do something retarded, say import sandniggers by the tens of thousands, the system starts eating itself. It doesn't work with multi-cultural societies, it's needs to be, as Uncle Adolf said, "one people".

The poor aren't worth less to society. Money are just tokens, and they don't dictate your worth as a human. But this is the kind of thinking you get in these second-world multicultural hellholes like the US, and soon much of europe it would seem. It's the effect of multiculturalism, dividing in every way.

It shouldn't be us vs them, it should be just us, and they can go be "them" somewhere else. That's how you get a functioning successful society, when it's one big (somewhat) happy family, not a bunch of retarded goat-herding paedophiles mixed in, or stubby smelly mexican dwarves shitting on every last building block that made the west as great as it once was. These "people" need to go, one way or the other.

The costs of the US healthcare system is because of state (federal) intervention, by the way. As is the education debt bubble.

See The Nordic countries (so far, at least) and Japan work because they're mostly one people. As soon as you start introducing too many leeches in the system, it will break down.

These kinds of systems are based around individuals brought up in a culture and with the intelligence to understand that the system doesn't work if everyone exploits it. It's a collective self-help system, and everyone understands where the money comes from (people just like themselves/their relatives). So as a result, very few people exploit it, and indeed most people don't need to even worry about doing that because they get well-paid enough keeping a regular job that it isn't worth it not to work.

>Japan work
that's a good joke tho
younger generations massively withdraw from procreation and employment
work kek, japan is a zombie economically speaking it's kicking but already died.

Socialism is indeed dead but it Social Democracy is still not called Socialism. That is just as wrong as referring to it as Objectivism or Jihadism or anything else that it is not actually called. And no, it doesn't matter that you are used to an incorrect definition - it's still wrong.

If only the workers of those companies owned shares for those companies, then you would have "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production." Note that "democratic control" in the definition used in your post means egalitarian control by the people involved, not control by a democratic government.

i don't like it either when they say "libruls ..." and refer to some bullshit totalitarian statist crap liberals supposedly want that goes straight against classic liberal values, but the meaning of words change over time.

socialism and capitalism are not entirely opposites of each other. and almost all states encompass both. socialism today is reduced to the idea that state "takes care" of the people and capitalism is reduced to the idea of "free" enterprise as in everyone has a right to start or own piece of a business.

very few states are not capitalist and even fewer are not socialist.

>the amount of value via labor and capital someone puts into a system is less than the amount of value they extract
>magically this person is a net benefit to those who's excess value is being stolen from them

Sorry you gullible dupes, these people are only useful to the extent that they help the tax farmers (people who need more human cattle sucking at the government tit so they can sell that government more services), and the land/property speculators that rely on ever increasing population to justify new housing developments on land that would otherwise be used for farming/timber/mining. The welfare state exists solely to distort prices in favor of an elite few.

Also, your worth is defined by a dollar amount. You have a dollar figure attached to you as a human by the government, insurance companies, actuarials at corporations, and for the labor (both paid and unpaid) you contribute to society. You have no intrinsic value to society, nature, the universe, etc, beyond your imaginary dollars figure.

Fundamentally, somebody with an IQ of 75, still costs the government (taxpayers) over $250,000 to birth, care for, and educate to the age of 18. If they are working poor they probably net out even. If they spend any substantial time on welfare they end up net negatives to society by a huge margin. If we got rid of welfare, 99% of these people would get off their ass and work to survive, have a fuck ton less retarded babies they cant afford, and in general stop being leeches. Really though, we need to stop paying retarded ghetto single women when they have fatherless retarded children, its the source of a majority of poverty issues.

Yugoslavia-look at what capitalism did to it

Every single government that currently exists is a Socialist government.

Sweden, finland, norway and denmark

Not Socialist.
Don't listen to Bernie or his cult

oh well yeah it's obvious that 100% socialism will never work

>not a single one, not one. It always ends in horrible failure like [...] Argentina
>I find socialist to be the most pig ignorant cunts that walk the face of this earth.
ok

>Argentina
btw, you clearly are a right-wing argentinian. no one else would be so paranoid to call Argentina "socialist", not even close

oh, and for the retards arguing about socialism without even defining it, go read this:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm
note that this was published in 1848