Is North Korea a communistic State?

American · Jun 30, 2011

obvious Child said:
Not in greedy humans at least. That doesn't mean his theories won't work.

They will never work, because humans cannot live that way.

Camlon · Jun 30, 2011

TheDemSocialist said:
Well if you mean that the government owns it and the workers take direct orders from the government that is not much of socialism. How do the workers have a say in what is going on? How do the workers own the means of production?
That is not socialism.

Democracy or having a say is not a requirement for socialism. Take a look at the definition at Wikipedia. It requires the means of production to be publicly owned. They are publicly owned in North Korea,

Yes there is such thing as Red Fascism. People who hijack the name of socialism such as Stalin and warp it into something entirley other. Such as Stalin, and this awful North Korean regime. Sense when is socialism you take direct orders from the state and the workers have no say and do not own the means of production? How is that socialism? How is "communism" having a cult of personality around one man who is "god"? How is "communism" have a giant government tell you how to live your life? How is that at all communism or socialism?
Red Fascism (Voline against totalitarianism)[/url

Socialism has nothing to do with success. Your argument is, it is a hellhole, then it can't be socialist. That is wrong. Also, just because it doesn't fit into your type of socialism, doen not make it less socialist. There are many kinds of socialism.

Red fascism is the same thing as state capitalism. It is just another word made up by socialist embarrassed about how bad some socialist countries are. In general the socialist strategy is to first pretend like the country is working and therefore a great example of socialism. That's what they did under Mao in 1970. Then if that fails, they will argue that it's not socialist. They will try to make up a new definition so they don't have to explain why it didn't work. That's what they did when they saw what failure Mao was.

TheDemSocialist · Jun 30, 2011

Camlon said:
Democracy or having a say is not a requirement for socialism. Take a look at the definition at Wikipedia.

Wait! Wait! Hold it right there.
First off Wikipedia is your primay source?
That is your ends of knowledge on the topic of socialism?
First off socialism is when the workers, own, control, and have a share in the means of production...
That is what socialism is in the tiny bit nutshell. Now you can go to wikipedia and be all like well it says it has to be publicily owned. That is a tiny part of socialism.
Worker own co-ops... Democratic workplace... Communes... Now tell me where you see that in North Korea?
Socialism is a political system with the primary goals are: Work environments are owned and controlled by the workers (i.e., not privately owned). Democracy. Equality. Tell me where you see any of those in North Korea?

It requires the means of production to be publicly owned.

If you mean "publicly owned" by nationalized yes some things can be nationalized but the workers should also have a say in that workplace which is a huge part.

They are publicly owned in North Korea,

Yes but the workers are merely slaves of the state. Where is there say at their workplace?

Socialism has nothing to do with success.

Huh?

Your argument is, it is a hellhole, then it can't be socialist.

Uhh no, thats not my argument at all. My argument is based on having knowledge and knowing what socialism is, having a open mind, and being connected with reality. My argument goes beyond what the tube tells ya and your "wikipedia definition".

That is wrong. Also, just because it doesn't fit into your type of socialism, doen not make it less socialist. There are many kinds of socialism.

I agree there are many kinds of socialism. But North Korea just does not fit any type of socialism what so ever!

Red fascism is the same thing as state capitalism. It is just another word made up by socialist embarrassed about how bad some socialist countries are.

Naaa its a new left term that has caught on with the times and describes many fraud countries that openly call themselves Socialist republics, which have nothing in common with socialism and mainly use the term to take power...

In general the socialist strategy is to first pretend like the country is working and therefore a great example of socialism.

Ooooo teach me professor!

That's what they did under Mao in 1970.

Soo you wanna talk about Mao and the struggle there to implement communism?

Then if that fails, they will argue that it's not socialist.

Many people would argue that China did have a form of radical socialism under Mao and i would agree with them...

They will try to make up a new definition so they don't have to explain why it didn't work. That's what they did when they saw what failure Mao was.

Ahh yous sooo smart...

Camlon · Jun 30, 2011

TheDemSocialist said:
Wait! Wait! Hold it right there.
First off Wikipedia is your primay source?

Wikipedia is my source for definitions. You are certainly not my source of definition. You will see that socialist disagree about which definition is correct. Why should I pick one of them, when Wikipedia provides the most balanced definition?

That is your ends of knowledge on the topic of socialism?

No, I already answered that question. Why do feel the need to pretend like you don't know the answer? I use Wikipedia for definition. I do not use Wikipedia for all my knowledge and I never use youtube as you suggest. However, for definitions, especially a debated one like socialism. Then I use Wikipedia because they can be changed by everyone, including you.

If you have evidence that the definition is wrong, then you can change it. The reason you don't like it, is because they got evidence while you don't.

First off socialism is when the workers, own, control, and have a share in the means of production...
That is what socialism is in the tiny bit nutshell. Now you can go to wikipedia and be all like well it says it has to be publicily owned. That is a tiny part of socialism.
Worker own co-ops... Democratic workplace... Communes... Now tell me where you see that in North Korea?

If you believe that is the definition and have evidence to back it up. Feel free to change Wikipedia. Right now, we are using the official definition, which do not require democracy, democratic workplaces or communes.

What you are doing is trying to change the definition of socialism to the kind of socialism you support. Then you can exclude North Korea. However, your kind of socialism is only one kind of socialism. To be honest it sounds like you support Trotskyism. If Trotskyism was the same as socialism, then they would have named it socialism. But it is not. Socialism is a big term, and it includes things you don't like.

Yes but the workers are merely slaves of the state. Where is there say at their workplace?

They are not slaves. They get free goodies such as free education.

Uhh no, thats not my argument at all. My argument is based on having knowledge and knowing what socialism is, having a open mind, and being connected with reality. My argument goes beyond what the tube tells ya and your "wikipedia definition".

Yes, that is your argument. You are making your own definition of socialism, and defining bad socialist countries as red fascism. In fact, if for instance Soviet was confident that the people supported socialism, then they would have been democracies. People would have supported socialism if it actually works. If a country wants to fulfill your homemade definition, then they have to be successful.

I agree there are many kinds of socialism. But North Korea just does not fit any type of socialism what so ever!

That's weird, how come North Korea is mentioned over and over again in the article and other articles. It is part of the planned economies type of socialism.

Many people would argue that China did have a form of radical socialism under Mao and i would agree with them...

Really? In what way was North Korea so different from China? Do you think Chinese people had anything to say under Mao? Do you think they could control their work places? Do you think there was no hierarchies under Mao? Socialism in China under Mao and socialism in North Korea is very similar.

NGNM85 · Jul 1, 2011

I've said this before; but I'm still struck by the fact that some of the most impassioned critics of socialism seem to have the weakest grasp of it.

Camlon · Jul 1, 2011

NGNM85 said:
I've said this before; but I'm still struck by the fact that some of the most impassioned critics of socialism seem to have the weakest grasp of it.

And what relevance does this have to do with the thread?

My experience does not fit your comment. In general the ones who have the weakest grasp, are the ones who tend to not care very much.

obvious Child · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
And what relevance does this have to do with the thread?

My experience does not fit your comment. In general the ones who have the weakest grasp, are the ones who tend to not care very much.

Perhaps we need to change words? In general, the ones with the most uninformed grasp, are the ones who are the most impassioned critics. People here are defining Communism as a class based society, with property rights, rule by the few and with a capitalist economy. I do agree with you that the weakest are the least caring.

obvious Child · Jul 1, 2011

American said:
They will never work, because humans cannot live that way.

I wasn't aware that humans were the only species in the Universe. Can you support your assertion that they are? You claimed outright his theories won't work. By that measure they won't work anywhere. I limited the theory to not working in greedy humans. Which we both agree on. You took it far further then I and you must support your assertion that it won't work in the broadest sense.

NGNM85 · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
And what relevance does this have to do with the thread?

My experience does not fit your comment. In general the ones who have the weakest grasp, are the ones who tend to not care very much.

My experience is very much the opposite. Most of the firecest critics of socialism know the least about it. They hate it, and they know they hate it, because they're knowledge of it usually comes from right-wing propaganda, telling them that Socialism is the primordial source of all evil, therefore, there's no sense in actually learning about it, actually reading socialist literature, etc.

I mentioned it because you seemed to basing your asessment of North Korea, and Socialism, solely on the basis of a Wikipedia article. North Korea is a lot of things, it's certainly about the worst kind of police state you could have a nightmare about, however; it, most certainly, is not socialist. The heart of Socialism has always been workers' democracy. Leninism, and, by extension, the hard-line antecedents, were a right-wing perversion of what had been the consensus among various Socialist tendencies. Thusly, they were bitterly condemned, by the leading Socialist intellectuals of the day; the leading Marxists, like Anton Pannekoek, Karl Korsch, Rosa Luxemberg, and even Trotsky, before he had a change of heart, as well as the Anarchists, like Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, etc. One need only read what they wrote about it.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
Wikipedia is my source for definitions.

You should really you know get a better source for information man.
I can go on there and say "Bush was the spawn of satan" and guess what according to wikiapedia it would be true...

You are certainly not my source of definition.

Never said i was. I was just saying maybe you should do some "socialistic" reading then maybe you could understand but in the mean time keep up wit hthe 5th grade definition of "socialism is where the government owns everything and you have no property" keep believeing that.
But anyways why are we even talking about socialism when this thread is about communism?

You will see that socialist disagree about which definition is correct.

See.. No... Most COMMUNISTS disagree about what communism is and who was actually a communist and what variation of communism is correct, you know Lennism, Stalinism, Trostkyism, Marxism-Lennism, Maoism etc etc... Most people agree on what socialism is, and its pretty much what a stated before bud.

Why should I pick one of them, when Wikipedia provides the most balanced definition?

There really is no such thing on a "balanced" definiton. Its either socialism or not socialism... Pretty simple.

No, I already answered that question. Why do feel the need to pretend like you don't know the answer?

Because it certainly seems like this is the degree of your knowledge..
No offence.

I use Wikipedia for definition.

Well your definition is awful.

I do not use Wikipedia for all my knowledge

It sure does seem so. Esepcially on the topic of socialism.

and I never use youtube as you suggest.

Did i suggest?
I do not recall doing this.

However, for definitions, especially a debated one like socialism.

Its really not debated...

Then I use Wikipedia because they can be changed by everyone, including you.

Sounds like a terribly unreliable source then.. Dont you think? Something that can be changed based on someones will to change it...

If you have evidence that the definition is wrong, then you can change it.

WOW

The reason you don't like it, is because they got evidence while you don't.

Evidence? What evidence do you need to define an ideology?

If you believe that is the definition and have evidence to back it up.

You mean like sources?

Right now, we are using the official definition, which do not require democracy, democratic workplaces or communes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Wikipedia has the "official definiton". Kid in college and even in highschool Wikipedia is not even considered a source when you write papers or give a speech you do realize this right?
How about this for the "official definiton".
Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism as: Socialism: (n.) 1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.

What you are doing is trying to change the definition of socialism to the kind of socialism you support.

No its what authors, political scientists, philospophers, SOCIALISTS, and researches have said, wrote, and what history has shown us about socialism..

Then you can exclude North Korea.

Whats is plain and simple and pretty self reliable if you knew or had any ****ing clue what socialism was you would see well North Korea is not socialist.

However, your kind of socialism is only one kind of socialism.

No democratic socialism is not the only type of socialism..
There is Utopian socialism, democratic socialism, libetarian socialism, social democracy, state socialism, syndicalism, marxian socialism, and communal socialism...

To be honest it sounds like you support Trotskyism. If Trotskyism was the same as socialism, then they would have named it socialism. But it is not. Socialism is a big term, and it includes things you don't like.

hahahah What the ****?

They are not slaves. They get free goodies such as free education.

No they are slaves as the state bud...

Yes, that is your argument. You are making your own definition of socialism, and defining bad socialist countries as red fascism.

Uhhh no. That is not my argument. You clearly have no idea what socialism is.
Cuba. Cuba is a socialist state. They are not doing to hot. Have some human right ****s against them. They are socialist. They are a state socialist system but hey guess what they are socialist.

In fact, if for instance Soviet was confident that the people supported socialism, then they would have been democracies.

Really?
Your going around in circles.
Straw man claim.

People would have supported socialism if it actually works. If a country wants to fulfill your homemade definition, then they have to be successful.

Venezuela and much of South America is turning to socialism and actually doing pretty swell..

That's weird, how come North Korea is mentioned over and over again in the article and other articles. It is part of the planned economies type of socialism.

You do realize that just because you are a planned economy it does not mean your socialsit?

Really? In what way was North Korea so different from China? Do you think Chinese people had anything to say under Mao? Do you think they could control their work places? Do you think there was no hierarchies under Mao?

Yes do a lot of those questions about China to a degree... Yes...

Socialism in China under Mao and socialism in North Korea is very similar.

Not at all really.

Camlon · Jul 1, 2011

NGNM85 said:
My experience is very much the opposite. Most of the firecest critics of socialism know the least about it. They hate it, and they know they hate it, because they're knowledge of it usually comes from right-wing propaganda, telling them that Socialism is the primordial source of all evil, therefore, there's no sense in actually learning about it, actually reading socialist literature, etc.

I mentioned it because you seemed to basing your asessment of North Korea, and Socialism, solely on the basis of a Wikipedia article. North Korea is a lot of things, it's certainly about the worst kind of police state you could have a nightmare about, however; it, most certainly, is not socialist. The heart of Socialism has always been workers' democracy. Leninism, and, by extension, the hard-line antecedents, were a right-wing perversion of what had been the consensus among various Socialist tendencies. Thusly, they were bitterly condemned, by the leading Socialist intellectuals of the day; the leading Marxists, like Anton Pannekoek, Karl Korsch, Rosa Luxemberg, and even Trotsky, before he had a change of heart, as well as the Anarchists, like Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, etc. One need only read what they wrote about it.

Well, then I think you missed completly. I do not base myself on a wikipedia article. I use Wikipedia for definitions for controversial topics. That is not the same as using wikipedia for everything.

Secondly, I don't read far right propaganda. Compared to the US I'm in the middle. You are supposedly a libertarian, that is far right. You are wrong about socialism, because you are basing socialism on a few types of socialism. Socialism is a bigger term, that's why all official sources define it that way.

Those socialists were condemned by some, applauded by others. That's because there are different kinds of socialism. Your completely off the mark, and is just insulting. For me it seems like you take your preconceived notions, and everyone that disagrees with you are stupid. Is Oxford dictionary stupid as well? They agree with wikipedia, and they do not require democratic workplaces.

Read this a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Camlon · Jul 1, 2011

TheDemSocialist said:
You should really you know get a better source for information man.
I can go on there and say "Bush was the spawn of satan" and guess what according to wikiapedia it would be true...

Ok, go ahead. Write that in this article George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

Also, if you can just change Bush Article to that, then go ahead changing socialism article to your own homemade definition.

Evidence? What evidence do you need to define an ideology?

If you want to define something, then you can't just use your own homemade definition. I'm sorry. In general wikipedia will use different dictionaries and also books for definition. However, I can use dictionaries as well. Let's take a look at definition of socialism from Oxford Dictionaries Online
And they also disagree with you. Read this

Oxford Dictionaries said:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Never said i was. I was just saying maybe you should do some "socialistic" reading then maybe you could understand but in the mean time keep up wit hthe 5th grade definition of "socialism is where the government owns everything and you have no property" keep believeing that.

Maybe you should send oxford dictionary a letter to tell them that their definition is a fifth grade definition. I'm sure they will agree with you and put in your homemade definition instead.

Because it certainly seems like this is the degree of your knowledge..
No offence.

You are funny. Maybe take a look in the mirror?

Well your definition is awful.

It's not my definition. It's wikipedia and Oxford definition. You are the one making your own definition.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Wikipedia has the "official definiton". Kid in college and even in highschool Wikipedia is not even considered a source when you write papers or give a speech you do realize this right?

Yes, but that is because it is not an academic source. Secondly the quality varies a lot from article to article. Articles that don't get visited very much, are articles with lower quality. Those are in general the articles you need in a paper. Therefore, you shouldn't use Wikipedia for school work.

Cuba is a socialist state. They are not doing to hot. Have some human right ****s against them. They are socialist. They are a state socialist system but hey guess what they are socialist.

So Cuba is socialist, but North Korea is not. You must be ****ing kidding me. How can Cuba be socialist, they have private economy? 22% of the formal work force work in the private sector and even more if you include informal sector. I mean supposedly only 40% of the population work. They are just a regulated economy. You seem to define socialism as "country close to government take over, that I support"

Is Venezuela socialist as well? Is Sweden socialist? :roll:

Venezuela and much of South America is turning to socialism and actually doing pretty swell..

:lamo

Do you know anything about South America? There is only one country turning towards socialism, and that is Venezuela. And Venezuela economy is in the gutter. They should have been the richest country in South America, because of all of their oil, but now soon Peru is richer than Venezuela and Chile is much richer than Venezuela. Not only that, but Venezuela was one of the richest countries in the world before they got democracy.

Also Caracas (capital of Venezuela) is the most violent city in the world.

Yes do a lot of those questions about China to a degree... Yes...

I'm sorry, have you ever been to China during the 1980s? In what way did they have anything to say? Most people were farmers, similar to North Korea. People could not vote, and they were not able to even decide over their own lives. They might have been placed somewhere to work. They were poor and got pretty much nothing for their work.

In what way are they so different? Or is your knowledge about China similar to your knowledge about Venezuela?

TheDemSocialist · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
Well, then I think you missed completly. I do not base myself on a wikipedia article. I use Wikipedia for definitions for controversial topics. That is not the same as using wikipedia for everything.

Secondly, I don't read far right propaganda. Compared to the US I'm in the middle. You are supposedly a libertarian, that is far right. You are wrong about socialism, because you are basing socialism on a few types of socialism. Socialism is a bigger term, that's why all official sources define it that way.

Uhh libertarian are not left and right......

TheDemSocialist · Jul 1, 2011

So is this thread about how North Korea is communist or socialist because they are two different things.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
Ok, go ahead. Write that in this article George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

Ok.

Also, if you can just change Bush Article to that, then go ahead changing socialism article to your own homemade definition.

ok.

If you want to define something, then you can't just use your own homemade definition. I'm sorry.

Im not using a "homemade definiton". Im using a definition which socialist's, political scientists, and academics agree upon what socialism is.

In general wikipedia will use different dictionaries and also books for definition.

I realize how wikipedia works.

However, I can use dictionaries as well. Let's take a look at definition of socialism from Oxford Dictionaries Online
And they also disagree with you. Read this

Actually it would seem that they agree with me...
Mine is jut worded different...

Maybe you should send oxford dictionary a letter to tell them that their definition is a fifth grade definition. I'm sure they will agree with you and put in your homemade definition instead.

Well saying ours are about basically the exact same thing then i guess they agree "with my homemade definition".
What "my homemade defininon says":Socialism: (n.) 1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.
What Oxford says: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Pretty ****ing similar.
Or how about we ask socialist themselves. How about my local party the Socialist Party of Kansas: Socialist Party of Kansas - FAQ

You are funny. Maybe take a look in the mirror?

Uh oh it seems that i just got internet pwned... :roll:

It's not my definition. It's wikipedia and Oxford definition. You are the one making your own definition.

Im not making up a definition for like the 6th time.

Yes, but that is because it is not an academic source.

Thank you for semi proving my point...

Secondly the quality varies a lot from article to article. Articles that don't get visited very much, are articles with lower quality. Those are in general the articles you need in a paper. Therefore, you shouldn't use Wikipedia for school work.

Or just for proof or a good citation.

So Cuba is socialist, but North Korea is not. You must be ****ing kidding me.

No im not..

How can Cuba be socialist, they have private economy? 22% of the formal work force work in the private sector and even more if you include informal sector. I mean supposedly only 40% of the population work. They are just a regulated economy. You seem to define socialism as "country close to government take over, that I support"

Well saying in Cuba all workers whether members of a union or not, have the right to participate in monthly worker assemblies, discussions and in the shaping of their workplace’s collective bargaining agreement. In Cuba no matter what you have a say in the workplace. You meet monthly to vote on how you believe the workplace should be ran. I must agree that Cuba does have quite the bureaucratic problem, the bureaucratic runs deep and slows the process down but they are a socialist country to an extent.

Is Venezuela socialist as well?

I would say they are getting their way there. So i would say yes they are becoming a true socialistic state.

Is Sweden socialist? :roll:

No. Just have a heavy public sector.

Do you know anything about South America?

Yes.

There is only one country turning towards socialism, and that is Venezuela.

Now this is were i call you just an utter idiot.
Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Peru.
Bolivia Evo Morales has been elected and re elected. "Morales has nationalised natural resources and, with Bolivia's economic growth in the last four years higher than at any time in the last 30 years, Morales has used this to initiate social programmes for the poor, including free medical care, social security for new mothers and the elderly and a massive programme for literacy that includes payments to low-income families to make sure their children can attend school." Under Morales many factories have been turned over to the workers to literally run the factor themselves.
In Ecuador the election of Rafael Correa led to a huge left turn. With massive social program spending to help the poor. The guaranteed rights to indigenous communities and other progressive measures such as same sex partnership rights through a new constitution.
In Nicaragua, the re-election of former leader of the revolution Daniel Ortega in 2006 has also seen a number of social advances including the introduction of free healthcare and eradication of illiteracy through close collaboration with Cuba and Venezuela.
Would you like to learn more?

And Venezuela economy is in the gutter.

Really the "gutter"?
This report would defiantly like to beg to differ
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf

They should have been the richest country in South America, because of all of their oil, but now soon Peru is richer than Venezuela and Chile is much richer than Venezuela. Not only that, but Venezuela was one of the richest countries in the world before they got democracy.

:lamo:lamo

Also Caracas (capital of Venezuela) is the most violent city in the world.

Not the most violent but certainly is violent. How is this "socialists" fault? It has always been violent. But Venezuela recently created a new police force and crime in Caracas is down 10%.

I'm sorry, have you ever been to China during the 1980s?

No. Were you?

In what way did they have anything to say?

Under the cultural revolution and under the great leap forward under "peoples communes" democracy was widely accepted for workers to have meeting and make democratic decisions on what should be done and if they should accept the decision made by the communist party.

Most people were farmers, similar to North Korea.

So if your generally a country of farmers at the time your a socialist state?:roll:

People could not vote, and they were not able to even decide over their own lives. They might have been placed somewhere to work. They were poor and got pretty much nothing for their work.

I agree with some of your statement about Mao.

In what way are they so different? Or is your knowledge about China similar to your knowledge about Venezuela?

Well would you like to talk about China and Venezuela or how North Korea is supposedly communist which this is what the thread is about..

Molotok · Jul 1, 2011

StillBallin75 said:
depends on your definition of communist.

There are also some who argue that the current North Korean regime is also somewhat fascist in nature.

Reality isn't black and white, and it sure as hell shouldn't be based on a google search. I searched "boobs are gross" and got 26 million results...doesn't make it true.

Very apt post, I think. I was going to say myself that a lot of North Korea's tendencies are more fascist in nature, but the bit about the Google search was quite good.

Khayembii Communique · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
In North Korea the people own the means of production, collectively.

No, the state does.

Secondly, marxism is not the same as socialism. Marx is not the founder of socialism, the ideas came from France. Marxism is only a variant of socialism, North Korea do not follow marxism.

Juche is not a socialist ideology.

drunkenasparagus said:
I suggest you stop bitching about the common usage of a term. And I would compare the two regimes with North Korea, as both states tried to exert massive control over their citizens, like few other regimes before or since.

That's the entire reason why I'm disagreeing with your usage of the term. Totalitarianism theory implicitly waters down historical analysis by overplaying the similarities between states. The reality of the situation is much different. One cannot compare NAZI Germany with the USSR under Stalin on the grounds of their "oppressiveness" because that oppression took on completely different forms, was realized in completely different ways, and had completely different outcomes. It's absurd to be so historically simplistic, and yes this is what totalitarianism theory was created to do.

I stand corrected; I fail to see how this affects my point.

My point was that you have absolutely no idea how much power the KWP has. The KWP could be completely subordinate to the military hierarchy, including Kim Jung Il. You just don't know.

I'm simply using totalitarianism as it is defined in the dictionary

Dictionaries don't teach political science.

TheDemSocialist said:
Well if you mean that the government owns it and the workers take direct orders from the government that is not much of socialism. How do the workers have a say in what is going on? How do the workers own the means of production?
That is not socialism.

The nationalization of the means of production is a socialist economic base. The fact that the North Korean citizens don't control the state is what makes it not socialist. The DPRK is what Trotsky referred to as a "deformed workers' state".

Yes there is such thing as Red Fascism. People who hijack the name of socialism such as Stalin and warp it into something entirley other.

Fascism has a very specific meaning. It is a corporatist variant of capitalism. Anyone that uses the term "Red Fascism" is a moron because they're implying "Communist Capitalism". It's even more absurd than state capitalism theory.

NGNM85 · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
Well, then I think you missed completly. I do not base myself on a wikipedia article. I use Wikipedia for definitions for controversial topics. That is not the same as using wikipedia for everything.

I was speaking in terms of the subject at hand, anything else you do in life is immaterial.

The problem with this is Wikipedia is only useful for getting a rough idea of something, if you want to truly understand something, it's the wrong tool for the job. I don't object to Wikipedia, it serves a vital purpose, but people accord it an authority that it doesn't deserve. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, it is not the arbiter of truth.

Camlon said:
Secondly, I don't read far right propaganda. Compared to the US I'm in the middle.

I said 'Right-Wing', I didn't say 'Far Right.'

It's virtually impossible to avoid propaganda. In fact, the United States, along with the rest of the Western, democratic nations, to a lesser extent, has/have the most complex and sophisticated propaganda systems in the world. In fact, this article of faith that you are citing, this common wisdom, is a result of a convergencebetween propaganda systems. The propagandists of the Soviet Union, while, comparatively speaking, less sophisticated, within it's own sphere, claimed the mantle as the standard-bearer of Socialism, while systematically destroying it. The western propagandists sang the same refrain, to tar Socialism with the brutality of the Soviet state and it's antecedents. So, it's little wonder that this idea has so permeated the collective consciousness.

It's somewhat difficult to make definitive asessments about the political spectrum in the United States, however, doubtless, it is far greater, and more complex and varied than the false dichotomy of Democrats/Republicans, the two faces of the Business Party. Also, what's 'called 'centrist', isn't, and has, infact, moved further and further to the right, especially in the last few years.

Camlon said:
You are supposedly a libertarian, that is far right.

That's largely incorrect. This is what I'm talking about. I'm starting to think I should put a disclaimer in my sig. The word 'Libertarian' was first coined in the 1800's. It was first used to describe a political tendency ( or, 'school of thought') in the mid-to-late 1800's. Specifically, Libertarianism referred to a vast spectrum of Socialist thought, the overwhelming majority, which was a democratic; anti-state Socialism. This included the Marxist thinkers, which were devided into several sub-categories, as well as the Anarchists. Abroad, it is still used in this context, and has been, for over a century. Now, in the mid 1900's, in North America, a group of a far-right thinkers, mostly influenced by Ayn Rand, but also other thinkers like Hayek and von Mises, inexplicably started calling themselves 'Libertarians.' This is the context most Americans hear it; in a non-literal sense, that is unique to North America, and has only existed for about 50 years. That's very nearly the polar opposite of the literal definition. Now, you're hardly to blame for the epidemic abuse of language that permeates our culture, but the fact that it's fairly plain that you are completely unaware of these realities speaks to your qualifications. These nuances are important.

Camlon said:
You are wrong about socialism,

See above.

Camlon said:
because you are basing socialism on a few types of socialism. Socialism is a bigger term, that's why all official sources define it that way.

All official sources? Also, what are the sufficient conditions of an 'official source'? More to follow...

Camlon said:
Those socialists were condemned by some, applauded by others. That's because there are different kinds of socialism.

There are different schools of Socialist thought. (For example; Anarchism and Marxism.) That's about the only thing I completely agree with.

Camlon said:
Your completely off the mark, and is just insulting. For me it seems like you take your preconceived notions, and everyone that disagrees with you are stupid.

My responses are not meant to be hostile or denigrating, and should not be interpreted as such. At least, not yet. If I decide to be hostile, I'll be much less pleasent.

Camlon said:
Is Oxford dictionary stupid as well? They agree with wikipedia, and they do not require democratic workplaces.

Oxford Dictionary is a step up from Wikipedia. However, still, one can only glean so much understanding, especially of complex ideas, from a paragraph or two. Just because dictionaries usually provide definitions for socialism, etc., merely having read them does not mean one understands them, or is qualified to speak authoritatively about them. To think that anyone can truly 'understand' Existentialism, for example, on the basis of three sentences, is absurd. These are gross generalizations meant to impart only the most fundamental and basic concepts. If we define Socialism by the bulk of the canon of Socialist literature, what I said was true. Again, the Soviet-style police state was roundly criticized by the leading Socialist intellectuals of the day, which was merely true to form. I cited Pannekoek, Korsch, Luxemburg, Goldman, Berkman, etc., etc. Most of this stuff is freely availible on the web. See, again, no offense, but I don't think it's that you have a different interpretation, it seems like you aren't familar with this. I'm not saying you need a PhD., but there's a certain prerequisite familiarity with it. If you want to understand Socialism, my best advice is to talk to one, which you're already doing. That's a start. I, for one, am, usually, fairly amenable to clarifying any gray areas, or expounding on something, in-depth. I'd also recommend checking out some Socialist literature, much of which is availible for free on the web, and I can make some recommendations. While I am not qualified to speak for Socialists as a whole, I imagine many, myself included, are rather tired of being told what Socialism is.

Camlon · Jul 1, 2011

NGNM85 said:
The problem with this is Wikipedia is only useful for getting a rough idea of something, if you want to truly understand something, it's the wrong tool for the job. I don't object to Wikipedia, it serves a vital purpose, but people accord it an authority that it doesn't deserve. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, it is not the arbiter of truth.

If you want to understand Socialism, my best advice is to talk to one,

But we are trying to get a rough picture of it. We are trying to decide the definition of socialism.

I disagree with that statement. I think socialists do not understand socialism very well. They tend to define socialism after their own ideology and put something in the definition, which makes it impossible to be socialist and not be successful. Socialists, tend to make the worst definitions. That's why I never use them as a source of knowledge.

That's largely incorrect. This is what I'm talking about. I'm starting to think I should put a disclaimer in my sig. The word 'Libertarian' was first coined in the 1800's. It was first used to describe a political tendency ( or, 'school of thought') in the mid-to-late 1800's. Specifically, Libertarianism referred to a vast spectrum of Socialist thought, the overwhelming majority, which was a democratic; anti-state Socialism.

I know that, but it is confusing. Please change it.

My responses are not meant to be hostile or denigrating, and should not be interpreted as such. At least, not yet. If I decide to be hostile, I'll be much less pleasent.

Ok, if you are planning to be hostile, then I'm getting out. I'm not interested in a flame war with you.

NGNM85 · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
But we are trying to get a rough picture of it. We are trying to decide the definition of socialism.

I am not trying to decide. I am totally comfortable with my present understanding of Socialism.

Camlon said:
I disagree with that statement. I think socialists do not understand socialism very well. They tend to define socialism after their own ideology and put something in the definition, which makes it impossible to be socialist and not be successful. Socialists, tend to make the worst definitions. That's why I never use them as a source of knowledge.

Socialist literature, the physical record of Socialist thought, is the only relevent barometer by which to determine what Socialism, infact, is. Anything else is as immaterial as the average rainfall in Tibet, or the market price of tangerines. Socialists may not be impartial, but that does not change this essential fact.

I'm unaware of how you define 'success.' However, from what I presume you mean, I can say this is not a relevent sufficient condition of Socialism. Moreover, I can't think of any legitimate definition of 'success' that would include the Khmer Rouge, or North Korea, except, perhaps, at acheiving, arguably, the least ideal circumstances for human beings.

Camlon said:
I know that, but it is confusing. Please change it.

If you know that, then there's nothing to be confused about. I'm a Libertarian. That's what Libertarian means. That's the literal definition. I'm not responsible for other people's deficiencies. I didn't make them deficient.

Camlon said:
Ok, if you are planning to be hostile, then I'm getting out. I'm not interested in a flame war with you.

You should calm down. The operative word was; 'If.'

Camlon · Jul 1, 2011

TheDemSocialist said:
Ok.
ok.

I'm sorry, but I can't find your statement at wikipedia. Did you fail?

Im not using a "homemade definiton". Im using a definition which socialist's, political scientists, and academics agree upon what socialism is.

So political scientists and academics are not making Oxfords definition?

Actually it would seem that they agree with me...
Mine is jut worded different...

Well saying ours are about basically the exact same thing then i guess they agree "with my homemade definition".
What "my homemade defininon says":Socialism: (n.) 1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.
What Oxford says: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Pretty ****ing similar.

Here you are wrong. Your definition includes parts which requires a country to be successful. You include that it has to be the interest of all. Oxford doesn't. You require the means of production to be owned by the community, Oxford only requires regulated or ownership. Thirdly, you said that all socialist societies have to have workplace democracies. Neither definition requires that.

Oxford dictionary agrees with Wikipedia. If you agree with the Oxford definition, then you agree with Wikipedia definition.

Im not making up a definition for like the 6th time.

Yes you are. You have not provided any sources for you definition, and you are changing it all the time.

Well saying in Cuba all workers whether members of a union or not, have the right to participate in monthly worker assemblies, discussions and in the shaping of their workplace’s collective bargaining agreement. In Cuba no matter what you have a say in the workplace. You meet monthly to vote on how you believe the workplace should be ran. I must agree that Cuba does have quite the bureaucratic problem, the bureaucratic runs deep and slows the process down but they are a socialist country to an extent.

Doesn't matter. You are not a socialist country if you have a private sector who takes up a third of the economy. You may have a say in the workplace, but you are not socialist.

I would say they are getting their way there. So i would say yes they are becoming a true socialistic state.

You should visit venezuela, and see them for yourself. I have been there. The huge income inequality is very visible. The private sector takes 2/3 of the economy. In fact the private sector in Venezuela is bigger than the US. Of course they have a lot of wage controls, but you know nothing about Venezuela if you call it socialist or even close to socialism.

It's like calling China communist.

Now this is were i call you just an utter idiot.
Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Peru.
Bolivia Evo Morales has been elected and re elected. "Morales has nationalised natural resources and, with Bolivia's economic growth in the last four years higher than at any time in the last 30 years, Morales has used this to initiate social programmes for the poor, including free medical care, social security for new mothers and the elderly and a massive programme for literacy that includes payments to low-income families to make sure their children can attend school." Under Morales many factories have been turned over to the workers to literally run the factor themselves.

You are the one here who has no knowledge about the topic. Sure social democratic leaders get elected all the time. However, they are not implementing socialism or even approaching it. If they are in fact approaching socialism, it should be very visible in economic freedom. But the decline is only visible in Venezuela, and Argentina slightly. Just because they nationalize an industry, does not mean they are turning socialist.

Really the "gutter"?
This report would defiantly like to beg to differ
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf

Your report is not including 2008-2010. Right now the economy is doing really badly compared to the neighbors. Also, to improve from the 1990s is not impressive, Conditions are still really bad.

He was elected in 1999. The economy back then was doing terrible after mismanagement from social democrats. Especially since Venezuela is an oil country and oil prices have been going up, it should be really easy to get the highest growth in South America. This is growth rates for south America in Chavez period.

Peru: 45%
Uruguay; 35%
Ecuador: 33%
Argentina: 30%
Chile: 27%
Brazil: 26%
Bolivia: 15%
Venezuela: 10.5%

No. Were you?

I have been to China, but not in 1980. However, my parents were and my father was a socialist. He has told me how it was in China back then and how he got suprised when he went to China. I have been to Venezuela as well, and you can easily see that Venezuela is not working. In fact Peru is a much more functioning country than Venezuela is. I have been to most South American countries, have you been to any?

Under the cultural revolution and under the great leap forward under "peoples communes" democracy was widely accepted for workers to have meeting and make democratic decisions on what should be done and if they should accept the decision made by the communist party.

I think you need to read up on democracy in China. You seriously think you were allowed to reject the decision of the communist party in China. Do you know anything about Chinese culture? Of course you don't. You have just read some books about how China supposedly was.

Well would you like to talk about China and Venezuela or how North Korea is supposedly communist which this is what the thread is about..

I think I shown it pretty well. You think Cuba and Mao's China was socialist, but North Korea wasn't. It sums up my argument pretty well, you seem to define socialism after success and not after characteristics.

Camlon · Jul 1, 2011

NGNM85 said:
Socialist literature, the physical record of Socialist thought, is the only relevent barometer by which to determine what Socialism, infact, is. Anything else is as immaterial as the average rainfall in Tibet, or the market price of tangerines. Socialists may not be impartial, but that does not change this essential fact.

I'm unaware of how you define 'success.' However, from what I presume you mean, I can say this is not a relevent sufficient condition of Socialism. Moreover, I can't think of any legitimate definition of 'success' that would include the Khmer Rouge, or North Korea, except, perhaps, at acheiving, arguably, the least ideal circumstances for human beings.

Well, you do need to read and understand socialist ideologies to be able to provide a proper definition. Very few socialists can do that, because they only know their own ideology and maybe a few more. I think academics are the best source of definitions.

North Korea is actually better than Mao's China and some countries today. But back then we lived in a different time, and the countries we compared China with was pretty bad as well. This made China better and they started using China as a model.

The problem is that a lot of socialists tend to define socialism after success. TheDemSocialist defined Venezuela to be near ideal socialism. Venezuela is really far away from socialism. Even Cuba is not a socialist country. The private sector is way too big. Why would he define countries that are far away from socialism as socialist, but not North Korea. Because he's not looking for who got the biggest involvement of the state. He's looking at who can provide best conditions for the people. If I did the same, then I could define Pinochet's Chile to not be capitalist, because he didn't maximize economic output.

I mean he even said Mao's China was socialist, but conditions back then was worse than conditions in North Korea today. Other than that, I can't see very much difference. He hasn't explained how China was so different from North Korea at all.

NGNM85 · Jul 1, 2011

Camlon said:
Well, you do need to read and understand socialist ideologies to be able to provide a proper definition. Very few socialists can do that, because they only know their own ideology and maybe a few more. I think academics are the best source of definitions.

How many Socialists do you actually know? Is this assessment really representative?

It depends on the academic. Again; I could make a few suggestions.

Camlon said:
The problem is that a lot of socialists tend to define socialism after success.

I'm still not entirely sure what 'success' means.

Unfortunately; there are very few examples of large-scale Socialism in action. However, this is in no small part due to a concerted effort by the United States to stamp out any attempt at 'successful defiance', and of the Communist Bloc, which proclaimed itself the standard bearer for Socialism, while brutally crushing it. The best examples I can think of would be the Anarchist-dominated areas of revolutionary Spain, lionized in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, or the Israeli Kibbutzim.

Camlon said:
TheDemSocialist defined Venezuela to be near ideal socialism. Venezuela is really far away from socialism.

I wouldn't describe it as 'near ideal', however, there are a number of striking characteristics. The Venezuelan government enjoys overwhelming popularity, with few equals I can think of. Also, faith in democracy among Venezuelans is similarly impressive, especially in Latin America, where a series of US-backed coups and pet dictatorships have made the populations, extremely pessimistic, and justifiably so.

Camlon said:
Even Cuba is not a socialist country. The private sector is way too big.

...among other things. No, Cuba is not Socialist.

Camlon said:
Why would he define countries that are far away from socialism as socialist, but not North Korea. Because he's not looking for who got the biggest involvement of the state. He's looking at who can provide best conditions for the people.

I mean he even said Mao's China was socialist, but conditions back then was worse than conditions in North Korea today. Other than that, I can't see very much difference. He hasn't explained how China was so different from North Korea at all.

I'm not going to attempt to psychoanalyze other members. I am not his, or anyone else's designated representative. If you want to know something about another member, ask them.

Camlon said:
If I did the same, then I could define Pinochet's Chile to not be capitalist, because he didn't maximize economic output.

Actually, Pinochet's Chile, at least for a time, was essentially pure Capitalism. It was also a disaster, which should be no surprise. This is significantly different from the United States, which would, perhaps, most accurately, be described as 'Corporate-Mercantilist.'

To get back to the bigger issue; here's the problem as I see it: You seem to be defining Socialism strictly in economic terms. If industry is publicly owned, even if it's controlled by a brutal police state, run by bureaucrats who live like kings while the people starve; that's 'Socialism.' However, Socialism, real Socialism, is more than simply an economic model. It encompasses political, philosophical, and ethical concepts, which are equally fundamental.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 2, 2011

Camlon said:
I'm sorry, but I can't find your statement at wikipedia. Did you fail?

Didnt really even try because for one i dont know how to and two it sounds like a waste of time and i have no interest to.

So political scientists and academics are not making Oxfords definition?

They do not seem to be making definitions sense they are political scientists, and political theory academics not English language academics...

Here you are wrong. Your definition includes parts which requires a country to be successful.

How does my definition anywhere say a "country has to be successful"? Where do you get "you have to be succesful" out of this "A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all."? Where? It merely states what socialism is in a nutshell...

You include that it has to be the interest of all.

Yea its called democracy...

Oxford doesn't. You require the means of production to be owned by the community, Oxford only requires regulated or ownership.

Well saying when the people (the masses) own or regulate the means of production it still includes that the people have a say and own the means of productions as a whole.

Thirdly, you said that all socialist societies have to have workplace democracies. Neither definition requires that.

I never said that in my "homemade definition".

Oxford dictionary agrees with Wikipedia. If you agree with the Oxford definition, then you agree with Wikipedia definition.

:doh

Yes you are. You have not provided any sources for you definition, and you are changing it all the time.

I have not once changed my "definition" nor have i merely made it up.

If you want to find out what socialism is maybe you should ask political scientists who are socialists or study socialism, economists who are socialists or study socialists, political theorists, or maybe socialists themselves. I have a long list of them if you would like to ask them..

Doesn't matter. You are not a socialist country if you have a private sector who takes up a third of the economy. You may have a say in the workplace, but you are not socialist.

No country has ever been purely socialist or communist or even capitalist for that matter if you wanna play that game...

You should visit venezuela, and see them for yourself. I have been there.

Right... Believe the guy on the internet...

The huge income inequality is very visible.

I know it is visible. They are on the road to many great reforms however.
I still recommend you read this report by the CEPR.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf

The private sector takes 2/3 of the economy.

I agree the private sector is still much larger than the public sector...

In fact the private sector in Venezuela is bigger than the US.

This just is not true at all.

Of course they have a lot of wage controls, but you know nothing about Venezuela if you call it socialist or even close to socialism.

Well i never called them socialist i said they are on the road to becoming socialistic... They have many many socialistic characteristics but they are not truly socialist. I said they are on the road to becoming socialist.. .

It's like calling China communist.

ehh kinda.

You are the one here who has no knowledge about the topic.

Well you think North Korea is socialist...

Sure social democratic leaders get elected all the time.

I will agree some of these are social democratic leaders but they are all taking a huge left turn.

However, they are not implementing socialism or even approaching it. If they are in fact approaching socialism,

All of these leaders however are implementing socialist ideas and ideologies to their countries.

it should be very visible in economic freedom.

Oh right... "Economic freedom"....
So now do you wanna talk about "economic freedom"? The "free market"? Or "free enterprise"?

But the decline is only visible in Venezuela, and Argentina slightly.

:lamo

Just because they nationalize an industry, does not mean they are turning socialist.

Never stated that is what socialism is...
You and some of the right on here should get together and make a anti socialist group...

Your report is not including 2008-2010. [/QUOTE]
It includes 2008.
But yes Venezuela is in a recession right now. But in 2011 the economy has started to grow and recover already. According to the president of the Venezuelan Central Bank, Nelson Merentes the economy of the country will grow well above the estimated 2% of the Gross Domestic Product.

He was elected in 1999. The economy back then was doing terrible after mismanagement from social democrats.

From a capitalist, right wing party?

Especially since Venezuela is an oil country and oil prices have been going up, it should be really easy to get the highest growth in South America. This is growth rates for south America in Chavez period.

Peru: 45%
Uruguay; 35%
Ecuador: 33%
Argentina: 30%
Chile: 27%
Brazil: 26%
Bolivia: 15%
Venezuela: 10.5%

Is this the GDP growth?
A source link would be swell.

I have been to China, but not in 1980. However, my parents were and my father was a socialist. He has told me how it was in China back then and how he got suprised when he went to China. I have been to Venezuela as well, and you can easily see that Venezuela is not working. In fact Peru is a much more functioning country than Venezuela is. I have been to most South American countries, have you been to any?

No i have not been to either.
But why the hell should i believe i guy on the internet?
I know people who have been to China, and i know people who have been to Chile, Venezuela, and Brazil...

I think you need to read up on democracy in China. You seriously think you were allowed to reject the decision of the communist party in China. Do you know anything about Chinese culture? Of course you don't. You have just read some books about how China supposedly was.

And you read books on how "China was supposedly was" as well im guessing...

I think I shown it pretty well. You think Cuba and Mao's China was socialist,

Never said it was socialist just saying it had socialistic means...

but North Korea wasn't.

Its not socialist at all. But you wouldnt know that because you have no idea what socialism is.

It sums up my argument pretty well, you seem to define socialism after success and not after characteristics.

No i do not define it as "success".

Camlon · Jul 2, 2011

TheDemSocialist said:
Didnt really even try because for one i dont know how to and two it sounds like a waste of time and i have no interest to.

It's funny that you don't even know how to change wikipedia articles, but you still think you can evaluate if Wikipedia can be trusted or not. If you tried, you would first get it changed back in a half hour. If you tried again, you would be banned from Wikipedia. Vandalism is not a major issue at Wikipedia and will not affect the definition of socialism.

They do not seem to be making definitions sense they are political scientists, and political theory academics not English language academics...

So you are discrediting Oxford dictionary. Tell me, why should I use your definition and not Oxford's definition. You haven't even visited China, Cuba or Venezuela. You still think that you have a lot of knowledge about the conditions in those countries.

How does my definition anywhere say a "country has to be successful"? Where do you get "you have to be succesful" out of this "A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all."? Where? It merely states what socialism is in a nutshell...

Hint "interest of all". If a system should acknowledge interest of all, then it has to be successful. You could even argue that the American system is not in the interest of all.

No country has ever been purely socialist or communist or even capitalist for that matter if you wanna play that game...

But it's kind of ridiculous when you think North Korea is not socialist, but Cuba with a private sector that takes 1/3 of the economy is.

This just is not true at all.

It is, you just lack knowledge about the topic, because the only thing you know about Venezuela is what other socialists have told you.
Public sector US: 38.9% of GDP
Public sector Venezuela: 34% of GDP

Oh right... "Economic freedom"....
So now do you wanna talk about "economic freedom"? The "free market"? Or "free enterprise"?

If they are really turning socialist, then it should be visible in their economic freedom, because socialist policies reduce your economic freedom. It is not visible, and they are really far away from socialism. You have never been to South America. I have, and I have talked to people. Apart from Venezuela. They don't believe in socialism. Some people want better security, but they don't support socialism.

But yes Venezuela is in a recession right now. But in 2011 the economy has started to grow and recover already. According to the president of the Venezuelan Central Bank, Nelson Merentes the economy of the country will grow well above the estimated 2% of the Gross Domestic Product.

It is estimated to grow with 4%, but we have to include population growth it will drop to 2%. Here is a list of projected growth rates of some countries in South America.

Argentina: 6.5%
Chile: 6%
Peru: 5%
Uruguay: 4.5%
Colombia: 4%
Brazil: 3.5%
Ecuador: 3.5%
Venezuela: 2%

Is that impressive?

Is this the GDP growth?
A source link would be swell.

Yes it is. I calculated the numbers, but I can tell you how to calculate them. Use indexmundi to find GDP at current value. Venezuela GDP - per capita (PPP) - Economy Then use a inflation calculator to find USD inflation from the year you are interested in, and then you have GDP per capita growth.

No i have not been to either.
But why the hell should i believe i guy on the internet?
I know people who have been to China, and i know people who have been to Chile, Venezuela, and Brazil...

But unlike me, you have never been to the countries. You have only read some books and heard some propaganda. You don't even know how Venezuela is doing compared to the rest of South America, but you still think Venezuela is doing awesome, because you read it in a report somewhere.

There is a reason I don't trust your homemade definitions and use official definitions instead.

Is North Korea a communistic State?

Is North Korea communistic?

Yes

No

Unsure

More options

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Camlon

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Camlon

NGNM85

Camlon

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

NGNM85

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Camlon

Camlon

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Molotok

Khayembii Communique

NGNM85

Camlon

NGNM85

Camlon

Camlon

NGNM85

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Camlon