What is the best form of world-wide socialism

Sly, shut up, I bet you havent read a single thing written by Tito.

For me it's a close tie between Cuba, Yugoslavia and China. But I hate how fucking Serbia destroyed Yugoslavia, those damn idiots!

All of them are either Leninist or Stalinist forms Socialism. (The latter I do not believe to be real socialism at all.) On, and Libya is, or was certainly not Socialist. I mean, I could call mud-puddle chocolate milk. It's still mud. Plus, there are simply far too many forms of Socialism to put down in a poll.


Edit to the above: China was Maoist, of course. But even then, that is an Altered version of Stalinism.

Second edit: To answer the Op, the best form of Marxist-Socialist, in my opinion, is a far more Libertarian version than what we have seen. As of recent, I have grown to more oppose the 'Dictatorship of the Proletarian' or the 'Peoples vanguard'. That isn't to say that I don't think Lenin was a cool bloke though.

It was simple Industrialization. Tito was smart, I'll give him that, and when your smart you can make most systems work in one way or another. It's a matter of finding one that is the most idiot proof, and Yugoslavia was not idiot proof.

Not to mention it became less and less Socialist and more and more Social Democratic as he reigned. He never did anything like collectivize all the farms or anything.

well all you said is true. Serbs killed Yugoslavia, Tito was The Leader, one of the best ever, actually. I agree with you that Yugoslav/Cuban/Chinese socialism's are fighting a close fight. Well Yugoslav is dead, so is all about Cuba and China now

Horrah for my converison abilitys!

well until I heard Tito talk about him on the form a log time ago I had no clue who Tito was. Then I read up on him and have came to that conclusion.

Then make bigger arguments for things then "X is awesome".

Then make bigger arguments for things then "X is awesome".[/quote:35ygw4dd]
You know that was not the onl hing I said about Tito on this thread.

And sadly Cuba doesn't have too much influence on the world.

Seems like a good thing to me. I don't want a dictator to have any sort of international influence, whether he hides under communism's skirt or not.

If only the dictator was a girl and the skirt was small.

As appealing as I find Cuban women, Castro does play the role quite well. Not to mention that he dresses like a complete bad ass.

If by more influence you mean "The ability to provide more doctors and better medical equipment to developing nations.", then yeah. That would be pretty cool.

If I have to give Cuba credit for anything, it's this. I can't really see them being docile if they were a major international player though.

They probably wouldn't be as bad as they were back in the days when they had support from the Soviet Union and people like Che Guevara running around. Think China, but on a smaller scale and with a significant cut to the overall asshatery.

Now, if your working on the massive scale- I think that Maoism is the dominate choice. If your working on the smaller regions, then Cuban Communism is the right choice. Mao was the one that expanded on Marxist-Leninism, which there was no large ideal changes after Lenin. Although he was a important, and I do not doubt great, leader; Stalin was not a person who really expanded on the ideals. Mao did. Hence Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

Hmm, interesting statement... get ready for the s*** storm

We all come to accept that hard hitting storm, happens a lot on here.

Too true... I think the weatherman said we are in for spotty s*** showers, with a s*** blizzard later this week.