>Oh god you're one of those retards who thinks the Soviets weren't communist either aren't you?
Where in the fuck did you read that retard?
>You wanted to pretend it was completely unrelated
No, I didn't, I made fun of you for thinking it somehow meant that the Nazis were socialist. That's utterly retarded.
>It is striking however that they were the first to institute some of these reforms in history
Sure; doesn't make them socialist or otherwise "far left".
>It's almost as if they were living up to their name.
Did you read my other post?
Okay now it won't let me quote you either
@ks99
>Where in the fuck did you read that retard?
I must've gotten your two examples backwards then, how is it different than the soviet union's control of their economy?
>No, I didn't, I made fun of you for thinking it somehow meant that the Nazis were socialist. That's utterly retarded.
It is a piece of circumstantial evidence. To act as if it doesn't paint any picture at all is utterly retarded.
>Sure; doesn't make them socialist or otherwise "far left".
Literally does make them far left for the time
>Did you read my other post?
Are you missing the "workers" part of their name or something?
>Hahahahaha holy shit, there it is.
USSR: United Soviet
Socialist Republics.
Preamble to the DDR's constitution:
Imbued with the responsibility of showing the whole German nation the road to a future of peace and
socialism, in view of the historical fact that imperialism, under the leadership of the United States of America and in concert with circles of West German monopoly capital, split Germany in order to build up West Germany as a base of imperialism and of struggle against
socialism, contrary to the vital interests of the nation, the people of the German Democratic Republic, firmly based upon the achievements of the anti-fascist, democratic and
socialist transformation of the socialist system, unitedly carrying on its working classes and sections the work and spirit of the Constitution of October 7, 1949, and imbued by the will to continue unswervingly and in free decision on the road of peace, social justice, democracy, socialism and international friendship, have given themselves this
Socialist Constitution.
Socialism, according to socialists, is a transitional stage to a stateless, moneyless, classless society known as communism. Communism is defined as such. When people call the Soviet Union, or East Germany, or China "Communist", they're referring to the name of the political party which officially strives for this stateless society, but in reality implements (maybe; see: China under and since Deng) socialism in order to get to communism. If you ever lived in the Eastern Bloc, you'd always hear stories about how great life will be in 20 years (it would always be 20 years in the future no matter what year it was) when there'd be no need for money, and you would be free from any needs. This was referred to as achieving communism.
Are you seriously playing semantics games by acting like I somehow fucked up by saying "communist" instead of "socialist" then literally pointing out their aim was to achieve communism? Because I'm going to have an aneurism if that's the case.
>They can do that in any authoritarian state. That doesn't mean that the workers were in control of the means of production, and that's fundamentally necessary for socialism.
You're shifting the goalposts. We were arguing about private property rights. Which you've admitted I was right about then.
>Not exactly, but that's the most reasonable thing you've said about socialism so far so I won't argue with it.
It really depends on who's socialist society you're talking about, since that's something that can technically be handled a couple of ways, but I'm glad we can agree that works as generalization of socialism as a whole.
>So then any authoritarian state is socialist? Is it socialism when the government takes a property through eminent domain so they can then give it to a corporation to build new factories?
Any authoritarian state abolishes the right to private property. As you've pointed out earlier that is not the only requirement for socialism.
Can you name me a socialist country where the worker's have actually been in control of the means of production and not the government? whether that be a party or a specific dictator? If not, are you telling me real socialism has never been tried?
