How to spot a communist.

[Soul Crusher]

that's not what i asked

Well that is the reality.   

[OzmO]

Well that is the reality.   

I asked if they qualify as democratic socialist, not if you think conservative policies are responsible for their recent success.

Geez you are retarded sometimes.

[Fury]

Those are failed capitalist countries.  Not democratic socialist countries.  Please brush up on your political ideologies by reading something out side of redstate.com

It's you who needs to be brushing up as none of those three countries comes close to qualifying as "capitalist". They are insolvent socialist shitholes and you are a fucking rat liar for even trying to argue otherwise.

[kcballer]

Does Canada qualify as Democratic socialists?

No, too much private enterprise.  Democratic socialism is typically based on all means of production being owned by a democratically involved populace with as much direct democracy as possible and recall abilities for any elected official who doesn't do as the people see fit.  Canada isn't even a true democracy, 39% of the population controls parliament.

333 doesn't understand basic political ideologies, not saying i know everything about them, but i'm not so ignorant as to make a blanket statement without understanding the opposing viewpoints to it.

[kcballer]

It's you who needs to be brushing up as none of those three countries comes close to qualifying as "capitalist". They are insolvent socialist shitholes and you are a fucking rat liar for even trying to argue otherwise.

Private ownership of the means of production = capitalist based economy. 

You're like a little lost puppy following me round.

[Soul Crusher]

No, too much private enterprise.  Democratic socialism is typically based on all means of production being owned by a democratically involved populace with as much direct democracy as possible and recall abilities for any elected official who doesn't do as the people see fit.  Canada isn't even a true democracy, 39% of the population controls parliament.

333 doesn't understand basic political ideologies, not saying i know everything about them, but i'm not so ignorant as to make a blanket statement without understanding the opposing viewpoints to it.

That is called "communism"

[kcballer]

It's you who needs to be brushing up as none of those three countries comes close to qualifying as "capitalist". They are insolvent socialist shitholes and you are a fucking rat liar for even trying to argue otherwise.

Welfare policies  and social safety nets do not make one a socialist country.

[kcballer]

That is called "communism"

Uh no it's not.  Communism does have similarities but differs for socialism, one reason is that true communism runs without a government, similar to anarchism, democratic socialism does still have a government and does not have ownership over small business enterprise, just over the most important industry.  I should have worded my first post better.

[JBGRAY]

Communism, in theory, would work rather well in very small like-minded racial groups but even that eventually breaks down. 

In the old USSR, the making of military weaponry such as tanks and artillery were churned out rather quickly and were often of a much higher quality than their American counterparts.  Fewer and more talented personnel with little restriction in getting what they wanted done resulted in an impressive end product.  However, on the flipside, a factory that made clothing required going through a bureaucracy so thick that production and quality stalled out badly.  In essence, Russia sent people into space and made incredible tanks and rifles, but couldn't produce a pair of boots or feed its people.

[OzmO]

the tanks were just a better design in WW2 part of which they got from a American designer who's idea was rejected in the USA

[Skip8282]

Does Canada qualify as Democratic socialists?

You can pretty much kick them in or out of the category as you please.  There's no generally accepted definition and I've seen it used much differently by different scholars.

Typically, they allude to certain elements for a description:

Ex:  If a society exhibits the following elements (x, y, z) we'll call it capitalist.  If they exhibit (g, r, t) we'll call it socialist (or whatever).  Then it gets sticky when you see element z in a society that's being defined as g, r, t and vice versa.

It's complicated to define governments and even attributes of various systems and classify them as one or the other.

I try not to get involved in this type of bullshit cause it just goes around and around in circles.  But generally, if the reader can understand what you're trying to convey, it really doesn't matter.

[kcballer]

Communism, in theory, would work rather well in very small like-minded racial groups but even that eventually breaks down. 

In the old USSR, the making of military weaponry such as tanks and artillery were churned out rather quickly and were often of a much higher quality than their American counterparts.  Fewer and more talented personnel with little restriction in getting what they wanted done resulted in an impressive end product.  However, on the flipside, a factory that made clothing required going through a bureaucracy so thick that production and quality stalled out badly.  In essence, Russia sent people into space and made incredible tanks and rifles, but couldn't produce a pair of boots or feed its people.

Russia or the USSR wasn't a true communist state.  It never progressed passed the dictatorship of the proletariat.  It was essentially a totalitarian form of socialism with central control of the economy, but none of the freedoms that true communism is suppose to bring. 

[kcballer]

You can pretty much kick them in or out of the category as you please.  There's no generally accepted definition and I've seen it used much differently by different scholars.

Typically, they allude to certain elements for a description:

Ex:  If a society exhibits the following elements (x, y, z) we'll call it capitalist.  If they exhibit (g, r, t) we'll call it socialist (or whatever).  Then it gets sticky when you see element z in a society that's being defined as g, r, t and vice versa.

It's complicated to define governments and even attributes of various systems and classify them as one or the other.

I try not to get involved in this type of bullshit cause it just goes around and around in circles.  But generally, if the reader can understand what you're trying to convey, it really doesn't matter.

Very true, it is a hard to define ideology.

However, i find the blanket assertion by many that a social safety net means socialism to be off base.  Social safety nets have been apart of capitalism and economics for centuries.  Having one does not make a country a socialist country at all.  Just like having elections does not make one a democratic country either.