You literally in one sentence say it's not socialism and also an extreme version of socialism. You are an absolute clown baby of a man. Your inability to ever admit you are wrong makes you consistently wrong in the dumbest possible ways.And North Korea calls itself a democratic republic.
Personally i wouldn't call social democracy "socialism" either because of the means of production controlled by workers thing.
Historically, social democrats have still aimed to achieve that, though through evolutionary methods within the existing democratic framework. There were also prominent non-revolutionary communists who were formative social democrats.
You don't understand why you have to pick. You just have theory without any way to actually implement any of this in the real world and you just think it will all work. You can list the types of industries you want to be socialist and those you want to be capitalist; however, your economy is gonna be more capitalist/socialist if you decide that by any kind of logic. The majority of your GDP is gonna come from one of the systems. The only way you have an equal amount of both if you just arbitrarily make half the businesses one thing and the other half the other thing.
Again, you can't even answer the question. USSR was a socialist country.
I pointed out how the term has become too all-encompassing.
And you're now saying that socialism doesn't include Marxism or Anarchism because they both believe in abolishing tbe state.
And North Korea calls itself a democratic republic.
Clown baby.
And North Korea and Congo claim to be democratic. You didn't think this the whole way through, did you?
I haven't been advocating for any particular system here-- just explaining what the theories involve. And plenty of political ideologies are 'hybrid'-- featuring significant capitalist elements and significant socialist elements. You've just insisted they can't do that with no reason given.
So you're judging it by the amount of GDP generated by worker-run or privately-run industry, then.
They literally are socialist by quite a few definitions. They're not socialist by certain other definitions (such as the Marxist-Leninist one). But then, according to your definition, Marxist socialism isn't socialism anyway.
According to some definitions. Not according to the Marxist definition.
... To be covered by your weak ass definition. Dude, you're trying to claim Marxism isn't socialism.
That everyone else's point! You're the one claiming the ussr was socialist because it said so!
Are we at 'the Nazis were socialists because it was in their name!' yet?That everyone else's point! You're the one claiming the ussr was socialist because it said so!
If you trick him into saying it he'll have to make it a fundamental aspect of his worldview and defend it until his dying breath.
No, there may be rankings that say Sweden has freer markets than the USA. But as we have discussed, the "free market" and "capitalism" are not the same thing.
I don't care what some country claims to be, USSR was a socialist country, that's what it was. How are you gonna say USSR wasn't socialist?
I said you can't be equally both.
As you all define socialism is basically means anything and also means nothing, that's not a valid word.... To be covered by your weak ass definition. Dude, you're trying to claim Marxism isn't socialism.
That everyone else's point! You're the one claiming the ussr was socialist because it said so!
That's the exact problem. If tell you I'm a capitalist, you know what I am and don't have to ask me what I mean. There's a significant group of people that are for socialism that don't just merely want to be "socialist" as in the Nordic model but be full-on socialist like that guy (Second Thought) on Youtube that took him like half the video to plainly say what socialism is. And his channel is basically propaganda due to how bias and misleading it is.
You suck at this. You try to pull a gotcha with the name of the USSR, then when called out on it, you go ahead and answer your own question and continue to hammer on the same fucking point as if you weren't plainly trying to bait a gotcha. And what's really sad is:
You think this tautology is your best argument because that's what you're leading with.
Well, only because trying to quantify the proportion of capitalism and socialism, to stick a number on it, is an impossible errand.
That's not arbitrary. Judging it by the proportion of GDP is an arbitrary decision.
If someone says they're "generally for" or "generally against" capitalism, without digging further into it, then you've also got a useless answer there as well. Because that, too, could mean a hundred different things to fifty different people.
By some definitions. Not by most. Not by the Marxist definition, for example.
