NEW POLITICAL TEST!

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, okay.

What country fits your criteria as not being capitalist?

If a country has any form of free market/market or otherwise private enterprise, it is capitalist.
Socialist = Workers have full control over the means of production.

Nothing is more beautiful than a ideology defending a regressive branch that collapsed, and shamed their views in most of the world. You can stick you head in the sand if you want, but the rest of us watched Communism collapse in Eastern Europe, and understood why it happened.

Easter Europe had none of those things, and was in far worse shape that Western Europe. Why defend a Soviet style economy when we all deduced how poorly it preformed?

And which 10% of those aren't 'floundering and failing'?

Again, capitalism has proven itself to fail in 9/10 cases, and even in successful capitalist societies, the majority of people are miserable. Plus we have only seen one form of socialism out of hundreds, plus any 'Failures' were mostly a result of foreign interference. Remember - 70% of Russians said that life was better in the USSR.

@ Toast - pre-revisionist USSR, Cuba, the warsaw pact bloc, pre-xiaoping china.

Anyway, not gonna continue from here. If you want to see my arguments, go back to some old threads or something. This always ends in the same way.

Once again, you dodge the question. How can you even remotely say that a Soviet style economy worked when it nearly ruined Easter Europe?

You pulled that out of your tail end.

We aren't talking about any other type of socialism, strictly the model that existed in Easter Europe. The one you insist on defending. Hell, LeninCat himself admits it was awful. I would think that Socialists would want to further themselves from the Soviets and their satellites, rather than defend them. If only for the sake of repairing your reputation.

I think it was a model failure, rather than a exterior one, seeing as foreign influence, aside form Soviet, was minimal.

Probably has something to do with their unnatural fetish for red, and the fact that Russia's standard of living is still considerably worse than most other first world countries.

Just saw his edit. Hey tosts, we won.

There's just no pleasing you commies.

Speaking of which, have you ever actually talked to an Eastern European who lived under Communism? Over here, all of our immigrants are from former bloc countries and they utterly detest any mention of their Communist rulers. Also, they hate middle-class teenage Australians yabbering on about how they adored living under it.

Or not.

Not if Scandinavia has anything to say about it.

Where's the evidence for this?

Jesus, you people make me frustrated.

In my opinion the USSR wasn't remotely socialist. However, its planned economy had some success.



It took a period of around twenty years to catch up to the economic performance of the USSR pre economic reforms.

You don't think that the collapse of their entire society might have had something to do with that?

What nooooo, not at all man.

Parhaps I shoot myself in the foot with this statement and parhaps I misunderstand your statement, but from what I DO understand, I have to disagree.

Capitalism doesn't necessarily fail, it just has ups and downs. Fluxuations, if you will, in its condition.

The time that any ideology fails is when it breaches one of its own clauses or is replaced [which, yes, are very similar].

To clarify, I didn't mean anything specifically by what I said. However the lack of growth in recent years is embarrassing for you market guys. Almost no growth for years on end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Soviet_states#Economy (look at the table.)

You are a National Democratic Socialist. 3 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 68 percent are more extremist than you.

Interesting... so could someone tell me what every thing down to anarchist, then skip to anthropocentric means?

Nationalism is basically patriotism, or the belief that your nation/people are superior. Cosmopolitian is the opposite.
Fundementalism is the belief that religion should play a large role in government, where secular is the opposite (Although not necessarily that religion should be banned) Reactionary basically means you want to roll back social/political progress, where visionary basically means progressive/wanting to build upon society.

Authoritarian = Big government, whereas anarchist = no government, or in this case a small government.
And anthropocentric = non ecological, generally putting industrial/economic progression above caring for/looking after the environment.

In other words, you aren't a tree hugger. Congratulations.

Thank you so much. 8th grade doesn't really cover this stuff, or at least not in Texas.

I believe it's a Texas thing.

It's an 8th grade thing.....

From Texas and not extremely politically backwards? That's rare.

I don't understand...