Thread has been deleted
Last comment
SOCIALISM WORKS
Czech Republic topperhopper 
THE USSR PROVES SOCIALISM WORKED VERY WELL GREW MANY TIMES QUICKER THAN MODERN DAY CAPITALISTIC RUSSIA SOCIALISM > CAPITALISM
2018-11-19 00:47
LOL NOBODY WANTS TO DEBATE ME HAHAH SO SCARED
2018-11-19 00:53
#2
 | 
Lithuania arres 
obvious bait /closed
2018-11-19 00:55
Your shithole of a country also did better under SOCIALISM Soon your country will disappear from the Earth as nobody even has kids there
2018-11-19 00:56
#5
 | 
Lithuania arres 
lol just go to sleep of whatever is stuck in your ass
2018-11-19 00:57
I am right tho
2018-11-19 00:59
#14
 | 
Lithuania arres 
In your dreams which you should be having soon ;)
2018-11-19 01:02
2018-11-19 01:03
they suicide a lot, Estonia too
2018-11-19 01:06
#26
 | 
Lithuania arres 
Lol dude, you are so stupid. That's because of massive emigration to UK, Germany and other EU countries where wages are better. BTW nobody migrates to your country lol. And even if Lithuanians are dying out, who cares. Lithuania has no culture, because your lovable socialism with USSR occupation destroyed everything that was good about it. So nothing worth saving. Also if you are so in love with socialism why don't you live in these countries? You declared that "There are only 2 socialist countries left CUBA & NORTH KOREA". Just go live there, dude. That's your heaven. GTFO of capitalistic shitholes.
2018-11-19 01:12
How am I stupid? Of course it is partially because of emigration. Mostly because of people not having children though. Also a lot of people migrate to the Czech Republic, it's full of Slovaks and Ukrainians. I don't mind living in capitalism, I only came here to prove SOCIALISM WORKS.
2018-11-19 01:14
#53
 | 
Lithuania arres 
Because this stat does not show whether people are dying out. You should compare birth and death rate instead. That makes a lot more sense. Lithuania is actually dying out, because birth rate is lower than death rate but as I said I don't care. When you have almost 3 million people in a country it's not that big of a deal. That's also a trend in most of the first world (not saying LTU is a first world). Why you don't mind living then in capitalism if pure socialism is clearly better according to you? That makes no sense. That's like saying you believe in some religion and do not live according to the teachings of that religion.
2018-11-19 01:33
Well there is this thing called aging. When everyone is old and there are no young people to replace them collapse will follow. So yeah you should care. You also probably believe there is a country or a system better than Lithuania but Lithuania is your home, why would you move? So it does make sense. I also think capitalism can work fine, though I don't think liberal free market one could. I think what is needed is a centralized nationalistic and also leftist economy.
2018-11-19 01:38
#80
 | 
Lithuania arres 
"I also think capitalism can work fine, though I don't think liberal free market one could." Everyone thinks that. Even USA which is probably as close as it gets to pure capitalism in practice anywhere in a history. That's why the best countries in the world has a mixed system of decentralized control, checks and balances, free market and socialist things like laws against worker exploitation, well fare, free health care, free education, etc. Socialism rests on the idea that people will have basically the same quality of living regardless of their input to society. That kills any advancements in any area since you are not rewarded for being better so why bother. Also people are selfish, power and control hungry fucks and in socialism all control is in government's hands with no checks and balances. When you have a small amount of people that has all the power that's a recipe for disaster. So what pure socialism gives is people who does shitty job, doesn't improve or invent anything and government which fucks with people because they can, drains country's money to themselves by doing corrupt shit because they are the only ones who has control and they are accountable to themselves. Nice idea, but the first world said "Thank you, we'll pass". Now prove how socialism works and why the whole world is so dumb to recognize that.
2018-11-19 02:14
The proof is that the Eastern Bloc grew quicker under socialism than both before and after. Russia for example has only grown under socialism.
2018-11-19 03:36
wow u are getting baited really hard dude
2018-11-19 01:49
#77
 | 
Lithuania arres 
meh... I know
2018-11-19 01:54
Agent Arold you forgot
2018-11-20 15:45
so does breatharianism
2018-11-19 00:57
Denmark proves it as well
2018-11-19 00:58
Denmark is a CAPITALISTIC country.
2018-11-19 00:59
no
2018-11-19 00:59
YES CHINA, VIETNAM VENEZUELA = ALL CAPITALISTIC There are only 2 socialist countries left CUBA & NORTH KOREA
2018-11-19 01:00
google: socialist countries
2018-11-19 01:01
why? socialism is clearly defined SOVIET UNION = SOCIALIST SWEDEN = CAPITALISTIC gay parades, high taxes and SJWs don't make a country socialist
2018-11-19 01:02
0/8
2018-11-19 01:06
topper is right. All nordic countries are based on capitalism. A wellfare system doesnt make it socialist. Socialism sucks real bad.
2018-11-19 01:36
But why would it suck? i.gyazo.com/9f5d9d27c501168742d9b28b28bf.. 1922 - 1590 1990 - 20600 GDP PPP per capita grew 1200% in 68 years NOW 1990 - 20600 2017 - 24400 GDP PPP grew 18% in 27 years Socialism made Russia grow 27x faster than capitalism.
2018-11-20 14:04
Socialism is not freedom. End of story.
2018-11-20 16:56
+1
2018-11-19 21:13
#33
 | 
Germany maestroCS 
how?
2018-11-19 01:19
google??????????
2018-11-19 01:20
#38
 | 
Germany maestroCS 
why don't you tell me? There has to be reason you think like that
2018-11-19 01:21
because i googled?????
2018-11-19 01:21
#54
 | 
Europe loonek4 
Social Democracy isn't socialism as the worker's don't own the means of production.
2018-11-19 01:34
so google lied to me?
2018-11-19 01:35
#58
 | 
Europe loonek4 
Not every politcs raleted site is a reliable source of information, so I guess?
2018-11-19 01:36
lost all respect i had for google
2018-11-19 02:07
communism =/= socialism
2018-11-19 01:01
union of soviet SOCIALIST republics USSR was SOCIALIST
2018-11-19 01:03
nope
2018-11-19 01:09
RETARD
2018-11-19 01:09
nope
2018-11-19 01:09
#40
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
The worker's didn't own the means of production, but control over the economy was centralised into a massive ademocratic bureaucracy. It was not socialist but state capitalist.
2018-11-19 01:21
2018-11-19 01:23
#46
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
I'm too tired atm but I will watch and reply to you tomorrow thanks for the video my friend :).
2018-11-19 01:29
#52
 | 
Europe loonek4 
The state was a workers' state which collectively organised the production and the distribution of resources in the economy as a whole in pursuit of predetermined goals (plans).
2018-11-19 01:32
#56
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
How can it be a "workers' state" if said state is completely ademocratic (democratic centralism enforces top-down rule, snuffing out local communal decision making) and all issues of production are handled by a small privileged bureaucracy? What is the point of getting rid of the capitalist class if you just replace them with an elite bureaucratic class led by whoever backstabs their way up the party the best? Look at Brezhnev's gerontocracy or China's princelings-a new class conflict is formed between the workers and the Party, there have to be appropriate checks against any authority that claims to represent the workers or there is no mechanism by which it is ensured that it will act in the interests of the workers.
2018-11-19 01:35
Democracy sucks anyways, the masses vote based on their feelings.
2018-11-19 01:39
#62
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
What gives the Politburo the monopoly on legitimacy? Why are they intrinsically better suited to determine what is right for people whose struggles they have no idea about?
2018-11-19 01:40
Anyone could join the party and work themselves up. The planners and politicians had the education needed therefore they were better suited than the masses.
2018-11-19 01:41
#64
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
Stalin had no formal education. Those who worked up the party were just those who were the most cunning politicians or those who were most loyal to their bosses, not necessarily those who had the workers' best interests in mind.
2018-11-19 01:41
Stalin was still more educated than 90% of the population of the Russian Empire and he dedicated his life to the ideology. Also we don't live in a dream world, you will never have a society where everyone has the best interests for everyone else in their minds.
2018-11-19 01:45
#68
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
Your second point is, of course, true, that's why you establish a system with enough checks and balances and a horizontal bottom-up democracy so that those that do wish to subvert society have as little impact as possible. Here's a reddit post that kind of describes this idea and how it works against people that want to kill the revolution: What prevents military junta to take power? Well a key idea in my mind to preventing the military from turning against the people is to change where its power derives from. In the modern day idea of nation-states militaries derive their power from the government, that is the army is an apparatus of the state and the "chain of command" ultimately answers to the political interests of those in power. In this model, a military will not act in the interests of the people because it, competing against the other "arms" of the state, will seek to gain power over the other institutions to get more funding and more influence within the system. On the contrary, in a democratic socialist society, the key to keeping an "army" (which would take the form of self-defence forces more than a traditional military) will be responsible to the community which it serves? Through which mechanism, you ask? Well, let's take Rojava, for example. In Rojava, the self-defense forces are organised into "military councils", with each region/city having its own military council. The "political" bodies here are elected by the local community, and hence things such as the resources and usage of the "army" are ultimately dictated by the people of the area which it operates in. What stops whoever gets elected here from seizing power? Well, the soldiers within these military councils are generally members of the local community. They know the city, they know the people they are not going to shoot their own families for someone they barely know. The officers/generals are elected by the soldiers directly and can be recalled at any time, so if a general (who is also part of the local community) does for whatever reason try to follow this command to shoot up the local population and take control then he or she loses their power base, that is the soldiers that come from the local community, and he loses his position. This creates a clear mechanism through which the power of the armed forces is curtailed by, firstly, the democratisation of the armed forces, and also the decentralisation of the army, that is it is not an apparatus of the state but it is more directly a tool of the population to protect it from external or internal threats. So what stops the different military councils from infighting? The answer to that is that the different military councils are not completely independent of each other. While they do act with autonomy and do have separate command structures, when needed (for example fighting ISIS) there is a superceding organisation, in our case study this is the SDF. All the military councils are part of this larger organisation which allows for local commanders to come together and organise larger scale organisation. Again it is entirely democratic and all power comes from the bottom-up, so if people are ordered to act against their community then there is nothing forcing them to do so. what prevents totalitarian religious sect to take power (see what scientologists did in the USA)? There are a large range of mechanisms which can keep extra-political forces like religion/ethnicity from asserting control over the system. Let's start with the first one. Whilst local policy decisions are made are a communal level, changes in law require the approval of an executive council. This is a representative system in which members are elected by the various areas of the society. This can act as a "check" against religious forces because even if one area is really religious they cannot implement religious extremist policies because they will get voted down by this executive council. Let's say, for example, one bit of the "area" is much more conservative and much more religious than the rest and so tries to ban women from being able to drive. This is just an example. Let's say that the communes of this local religious region all agree on this so the law is put up to the executive council to be voted on. Because the other areas, and their populations as a whole, will also have a say in this decision they do have the ability to stop it wherein it restricts others right to self-determination. So how can this be guarenteed to happen? Well one way that it can be ensured to be voted down is through a constitution. This constitution can gaurentee rights such as religious freedom, equal rights for all genders/ethnicities, right to self-determination and so on. If no one body has the authority to act against this constitution then even if an extremist view does gain legitimate popularity there is no legal basis through which this "tyranny of the majority" can occur and so minority rights are protected. So how is this constitution enforced? Well ultimately any society does in truth rely on the will of its population to enforce the "social contract" of the society, and if no-one believes in socialism then ultimately socialism can't occur. This is a truism for any society so goes without saying, and I am going on the assumption that there is a solid degree of support for the democratic socialist society which I am envisioning since socialism relies on self-determination and democracy to operate. Still though, even with organised opposition to constitutional freedoms, there are ways by which the freedoms can be protected. One of these are indeed the self-protection forces. Since the self-defense forces are independent from any political body such as the executive council, the political choices made by the council are independent of how this self-defense force operates. Even if somehow a religious extremeist force takes control and passes a law that restricts the freedoms of women or whatever, that political law will not be enforced if the population perceives it to be unjust, as the self-protection forces, since their power derives from the local population, will as such act in a way that supports said local population, even if that means disobeying the laws passed in the executive council. These different branches of power can counterbalance each other even if one gets corrupted; keep in mind that these three-the communes, executive body and self-defence forces are not the only avenues of power, there are also trade unions, women's councils, farmer's councils, co-ops and so on. All these different bodies do not act towards the same centralised body but are autonomous groups of democratic bodies whose power derives from different areas, but also do have means by which they can co-operate, meaning that conflicting interests will not mean they end up competing and conflicting against each other. If one branch becomes corrupted then the others can group up and supercede its authority before its influence can spread to others, I guess. The rights of minorities are thus protected from extremist groups. I guess I haven't written this perfectly so if you need clarification I am happy to provide it. what prevents one charismatic leader with his party to take control over everything? The answer to this is pretty much the same-even if a group led by a charismatic guy gains control over some of the political apparatus then there are alternative ones which can act as a check against the influence of the institutions which are under the control of this charismatic leader.
2018-11-19 01:48
I do believe in checks and balances, I also think the more powerful a person is the less freedom he deserves and the more responsibility he has, kind of like the philosopher kings from Plato's writings.
2018-11-19 01:50
#76
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
I am going to bed now but good talking with you-I personally think that it is better to just eliminate such vertical power structures altogether that allow for abuses of power to arise, although I do admit that in the case of the USSR the material conditions it found itself in did require a strong executive body, at least at the start.
2018-11-19 01:52
#67
 | 
Europe loonek4 
The property relations which the USSR upheld - despite its bureaucratic deformations - where post-capitalist. Bourgeois property had been expropriated and the circuit of capital was supplanted. Insofar as this was the case it was a workers' state with bureaucratic deformations. Deny it all you want but this is substantially "better than capitalism." I am myself a Luxembourgist so I'm not a big fan of Stalin but I believe that socialists who claim to support and seek to encourage/facilitate the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie should support all attempts of the proletariat and exploited people generally to free themselves. Besides Endymion made a great video about USSR's democracy: youtube.com/watch?v=Okz2YMW1AwY
2018-11-19 01:47
#72
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
I will watch the video and reply tomorrow It's very late now, but thanks v. much for reply I will get back to you friend :).
2018-11-19 01:50
#50
 | 
Europe loonek4 
Marx used the terms interchangeably but referred to a lower stage of communism. Lenin called the lower stage socialism. Marxists, who are Leninists, use that convention.
2018-11-19 01:31
YOU MUST SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION SO EVERYONE CAN SUCK EQUALLY
2018-11-19 01:05
2018-11-19 01:07
capitalism saved russia, at least european russia, and look at cuba and venezuela, they have nothing to eat but rotten meat.
2018-11-19 01:07
How did it save Russia? By destroying its economy and doubling the mortality rate? LOL
2018-11-19 01:08
BuT STiiL tHeY nEeD 1 NuKe tO kiLL yOuR cOuNtRy😎😎😎
2018-11-19 02:43
#36
 | 
Germany maestroCS 
Look at russia before the soviet union and after it. Also, Venezuela isn't socialist.
2018-11-19 01:20
the state controls all the market, the government has all the money and equally distribues the misery, and Nicolas maduro's political party is called: united socialist party of venezuela. How is this not socialism?
2018-11-19 21:10
#109
 | 
Germany maestroCS 
Socialism means that the public owns the means of productions. Around 2/3 of Venezuela's economy is private. How is that socialism?
2018-11-20 04:14
#37
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
Why does Cuba have the same life expectancy as the US? edit: actually higher OMEGALUL
2018-11-19 01:23
#41
 | 
Germany maestroCS 
"same" as if, it's actually higher than in the US lmao
2018-11-19 01:22
#45
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
People believe all the US propaganda they read, unfortunately. While Cuba is FAR from perfect of course, there's a lot of political repression and the state is far too big, it's undeniable that the revolution helped the population massively-no-one goes hungry there that's for sure, I mean while it's obviously not as prosperous as a western European country it's better than those around it like Haiti and Dominica and crap. I prefer more libertarian socialism like DFNS, Catalonia and such than Marxist-Leninist ones since I like democracy but it's just revisionist to say that the Cuban Revolution was a failure.
2018-11-19 01:25
reported for shitty bait capitalism is the reason you're able to discuss this topic
2018-11-19 01:13
0/8
2018-11-19 01:15
lol any rebuttal??
2018-11-19 02:38
Pretty sure people debated this even in the Eastern Bloc.
2018-11-19 03:37
nope anyone who thought differently was killed or exiled in the ussr you fuckin commie
2018-11-19 03:39
LOL I am there and that is not even true.
2018-11-21 14:30
you are either not serious or trolling, can't tell. ussr has been gone for decades thank christ
2018-11-21 23:54
#121
Sweden PPH 
Is that why intellectuals and free thinkers where hunted down by the police/kbg and being sent to gulags?
2018-11-21 10:10
Some were but that was in the 30s only when the USSR was preparing for the next world war. Mostly their art was just banned and usually it was some terrible pseudo art anyways. This band is the most famous banned music here: youtube.com/watch?v=B91gRhq7fyA You can hear it's some degenerate hippie music for druggies.
2018-11-21 14:35
#124
Sweden PPH 
Preparing for the next world war, by killing of people that makes no threat to the state? Sounds like a genius idea.
2018-11-21 14:47
Well they were fully surrounded by the aggressive western powers so they wanted the entire population to be on board and not engage in subversion.
2018-11-21 14:49
#126
Sweden PPH 
So basically they wanted to eliminate all the people who they thought could cause a hinder for the other cogs in the bigger wheel called USSR? And that is ok/good for what reason exactly?
2018-11-21 14:52
I am not saying its good but things used to be more brutal everywhere back in the day, also Russia was way more primitive than countries like Sweden and even you had things like forced sterilization etc. The French ran incredibly brutal prisons in South America, the British had concentration camps up till the 50s in Africa yet if I wrote that Britain has produced a great civilization you would never bring any of these things up. That is hypocrisy.
2018-11-21 14:57
#128
Sweden PPH 
I never said that other countries and ways of running things arent flawed aswell, some less and some more. But that wont make me say that socialism or communism was good systems. And yes i agree that those who call their equally brutal systems for civilized while criticising others, is just pure hypocrisy which i really hate. But if you can point out flaws in one area, you should also be able to show the same type of criticism for everything else.
2018-11-21 15:09
#51
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
Labour produces all goods and services under any mode of production, not the mystical force of the market. There are many books which discuss what actually drives people to innovate and produce things, and you will find that profit is, in general, not one of them. hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect..
2018-11-19 01:32
#30
fer | 
Brazil Drezim1 
putin will save the world from western sinners
2018-11-19 01:16
he won't
2018-11-19 01:17
#32
fer | 
Brazil Drezim1 
yes
2018-11-19 01:18
#48
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
Putin is an imperialist fascist he is even worse than bourgeoise democracy.
2018-11-19 01:30
#66
fer | 
Brazil Drezim1 
fascism did nothing wrong
2018-11-19 01:47
#69
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
Then Gods help you, Drezim1, for you are truly lost.
2018-11-19 01:49
#71
fer | 
Brazil Drezim1 
putin will help US bro
2018-11-19 01:50
#74
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
I don't support US capitalist interests, they've completely screwed up so much of my local area that it's hard to feel positive towards Pax Americana.
2018-11-19 01:50
#103
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
You were the chosen one. It was said that you would destroy socialism, not join it. Bring balance and equality to the world, not leave it in Darkness. You were my brother Cruujed....and I loved you!
2018-11-19 15:19
#34
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
Google Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Communalism best form of government, works 100% of the time it's been tried unlike literally anything else! Abdullah Ocalan did nothing wrong, well only a couple of things...
2018-11-19 01:20
#42
OCEAN | 
United States thizzl 
try democratic socialism. USSR is a poor example because of a dictator named Stalin. North Korea has an authoritarian dictator too, closer to a monarchy. Cuba has democratic socialism but is a poor example because of 50 years of trade embargos. Cuba wasn't allowed to a chance and that is a fact. If capitalism is stronger why did the US government plan to assasinate the leader of a "weaker form of government" such as socialism? Only a coward would kill those weaker than them.
2018-11-19 01:23
The dictator named STALIN was an amazing human being who took a peasant nation to outer space. youtube.com/watch?v=MC0Om8v8H7g
2018-11-19 01:24
#49
OCEAN | 
United States thizzl 
Nah Stalin betrayed the people. Those captured Nazis got us to space lol
2018-11-19 01:30
Nonsense lol. All the Germans did was this ballistic missile V2 rocket, not to mention the vast majority of those captured scientists went to the West.
2018-11-19 01:36
#85
OCEAN | 
United States thizzl 
Us as in humans, not into false nationalism
2018-11-19 02:59
#104
cyx | 
Germany Shadyy89 
+1 But only because you gave Mr. von Braun unlimited ressources :D
2018-11-19 15:21
#47
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
Good post
2018-11-19 01:29
Russia does not work either it socialism or capitalism.
2018-11-19 01:51
UkRaIn mUsT JoIn RuSsiA. AnD mAyBe RusSiA wiLl SaVe U
2018-11-19 02:44
#78
NiKo | 
Chile rezuh 
Why do i see so many people getting baited here lol
2018-11-19 01:56
One day, people will understand that socialism is different from communism And socialism is not incompatible with capitalism European socialism is about regulating the potential excess and abuses of capitalism to prevent normal people from being exploited, it's not even close to communism This is a bait thread anyway, but still I wanted to put that here
2018-11-19 02:44
Fake bs, complete illiteracy. USSR = SOCIALIST FRANCE = CAPITALISTIC
2018-11-19 13:54
Typical unneducated naive guy who doesn't understand anything about socialism By the way, the leftist party in France is litterally called the Socialist Party France is obviously a capitalist country, and still one of the most socialist countries in Europe, with Spain probably Just to say that capitalism and socialism aren't antonyms
2018-11-19 14:00
How am I uneducated you tard? You are the one who hasn't gotten past the first paragraph of the definition: Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Your shitty SP in FRance is a fake pseudo leftist pro-imperialist party. You can't be both socialist and capitalist. Socialism = means of production is controlled collectively Capitalism = means of production is controlled privately
2018-11-19 14:26
Yeah thank you I know this page very well, and you know what ? I even have a better argument for you, it's written : By the late 19th century, after the work of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, socialism had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production But we're in the 21th century right now, and Karl Marx's socialism corresponds to communism, and not to current socialism Europe has its own way of doing socialism, which is actually just controlled capitalism to avoid the exploitation of people Because capitalism by itself without any control by the government would just drive us to a society where companies would gladly kill their employees if it produced money
2018-11-19 14:54
Communism is also clearly defined = stateless moneyless propertyless utopia USSR wasn't communist LOL, it was socialist No need to OBSCURE reality Europe is CAPITALISTIC
2018-11-19 14:55
Ok so how would you call the difference between USA and Europe ? In Europe the government protects people rights from big companies whereas in the USA money has much more power Of course it's far from perfect, and a lot of people are still exploited in Europe, but it's still better to be poor in Europe than to be poor in the USA So how would you call this difference ? Cause that's what we call Socialism
2018-11-19 15:02
The difference is simply more regulations and higher taxes.
2018-11-19 15:03
Exactly, and this has a name in european countries, and it's called socialism
2018-11-19 15:04
That is what obscurantists call socialism. It's not socialism though.
2018-11-19 15:05
#119
 | 
Germany maestroCS 
Nobody in Europe calls it socialism tho? Western European countries are social democracies. They're mixed economies, basically capitalism with social benefits.
2018-11-20 20:13
#118
 | 
Germany maestroCS 
"European socialism" isn't socialism, it's capitalism. Socialism means the public owns the means of productions which isn't the case in Europe.
2018-11-20 20:12
bait thread, take a look at venezuela
2018-11-19 03:01
Venezuela is not socialist.
2018-11-19 03:37
#91
 | 
Japan Getp0x0st 
why not?
2018-11-19 07:33
#92
smooya | 
Other Cruujed 
The worker's don't own the means of production. It's got more % privatised production than Denmark or France, neither of whom are socialist by any means. An authoritarian government with a red flag doesn't equal socialism, just as the Democratic Republic of the Congo isn't that democratic. Google Rojava.
2018-11-19 13:11
#102
 | 
United States ecl1pseCS 
Venezuela #1
2018-11-19 15:06
+1 comrade
2018-11-19 21:12
#108
 | 
Ukraine niXoN|w1 
I live in an ex-USSR country and my relatives live in Russia, and I'm telling you: There are no good cities to live in Russia and Ukraine except for Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kyiv and Lviv.
2018-11-19 21:15
Yes my friend! Just who lives in the real environment know how bad is that. Socialism is a criminal ideology!
2018-11-23 19:38
Yes
2018-11-20 04:21
#111
 | 
Brazil VeryMibrGuy 
It's not possible to argue with a person who's already claiming the victory. Have a nice life man.
2018-11-20 04:42
yes very hard to argue when someone says MIBR number 1
2018-11-20 15:45
#120
 | 
Brazil VeryMibrGuy 
I'm not saying that MiBR is the number one, stop creating these kind of pitiful lies. Edit: I'm also sad to know that someone urges to think that MiBR is the number one. We must unite as a team fan, not a syndicalist.
2018-11-21 01:41
Khruschev should not have chickened out during the Cuban missile crisis. if they had had a nuclear confrontation with the USA communism would have triumphed over the world. the hammer and sickle and the five stars would hang over the world.
2018-11-20 17:10
#117
 | 
Russia wWOrry 
Socialism is the future of the world
2018-11-20 18:27
#130
 | 
Spain emCee_ 
National socialism was better
2018-11-21 23:57
socialism
2018-11-23 19:30
Socialim is like my ass, It's userful to put shit out.
2018-11-23 19:37
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.