Hello. This is my second time here...

Even if those end up killing millions from both starvation and from being shot to death?
Would you consider taking only part of the territory of a country to do the socialist experiment instead of the entire thing, so that people can just leave if they don't like it?

Castro was the only good M-L in history

Attached: cuba sun.jpg (480x516 27.91 KB, 429.92K)

No, I decide to take them all down with me.

Would you give up on quitting smoking if you try that once and you go back to smoking after a while?

Socialism = workers' ownership of the means of production, no private property. None of the countries you've named are socialist except Cuba.


Seems unlikely to me considering historical socialist countries have a track record of massively improving quality of life, combating famine and being responsible for less mass murders than major capitalist powers

SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM ARE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, NOT LIFESTYLES

Doing a local communist 'experiment' or starting a kibbutz does nothing. To establish socialism you need a world revolution or at least a socialist country which has the potential to be self-sufficient. Otherwise you will remain dependent on capitalism, a global system that has to be counteracted on a global scale.

Marxism is intended as scientific socialism, i.e. if something goes wrong we examine what happened and try to come up with solutions.

the living, walking parody

Attached: 43c.jpg (480x272, 19.7K)

I wouldn't even start socialism/smoking.

No, they are social democratic, but thats better than capitalist. Its a step in the right direction.
Nope but better than what they would otherwise be
Incredibly based and arguably the furthest along out of any existing country right now, but doesnt have a full on socialist economy. You could argue they are socialist.

Such as?


What if, somehow, it's fundamentally wrong? Like, for example, lacking a basic mechanic that makes society function.