Which of the following countries are communist?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Canada
France
Netherlands
Germany
South Africa

According to AuH2O, they all are.

[A18]

They're all socialist. Difference between it an communism is very much subjective.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, none are socialist IMO. Parts of Canada are socialist (and not the parts you might guess either) and I guess that parts of Germany and France might be (but no where near as much as is often thought).

Socialism does NOT = State Ownership/Control

[opebo]

All of those are extremely capitalist countries.  France is the only one with any noticable socialism at all.

[Hitchabrut]

Socialist, especially Canada and France. Netherlands is debatable, but I'd still say socialist.

[phk]

People love throwing around loaded terms and not knowing what they mean.

[Excelsior]

South Africa- Communist.
All the others- socialist.

[Jake]

France, Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany are massive welfare states.  South Africa is socialist and is run by a coalition of socialists and communists.

[ragnar]

not one of these countries are communist.

[went that way]

None of those countries are Communist because Communist States or Communist Country cannot exist they are contridictiary terms.

[A18]

Socialism does NOT = State Ownership/Control

That's the EXACT definition. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change the meaning of the word.

[Gabu]

I'm not even going to bother.

[A18]

You are correct in implying that these countries are not communist, but they are certainly socialist. Of course, I think Democrats are socialists.

[went that way]

You are correct in implying that these countries are not communist, but they are certainly socialist. Of course, I think Democrats are socialists.

Democrats aren't socialist of current democratic congressmen olny two are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Major Owens (D-NY) and Danny Davis (D-IL).  There is a third member I think you can geuss who he is. There are many progressives.
Here's an attempt to describe Socialism by Redstar2000
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[A18]

No, substantial wealth redistribution is the best definition.

[Jake]

That's cool. 3 US Congressmen are members of a socialist group

[A18]

That's cool. 3 US Congressmen are members of a socialist group

The real number is 203.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's cool. 3 US Congressmen are members of a socialist group

The real number is 203.

Funny, the bankruptcy bill got 302 votes.

[A18]

I meant that they were part of a socialist organization, not that they, themselves, were socialists.

By the way, that bill wasn't really anti-socialism. I mean, one can favor wealth redistribution and still recognize fraud as fraud.

[went that way]

How is the Democratic Party a socialist political party explain.

That's cool. 3 US Congressmen are members of a socialist group

after 2006 2 Major Owens is retiring in 06.

[A18]

How is the Democratic Party a socialist political party explain.

Well, they support substantial wealth redistribution.

Now, I know you might counter and point to Republican 'support' for programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Now, people assume we support these programs, and we talk we do, but really, we would like to eradicate them. It's part of the long term agenda, I'd say.

And yes, we have tolerated terrible non-flat tax rates for too long, but I think we can fix that in the next four years or so.

Meanwhile, inflation will effectively do away with the federal minimum wage.

As spending is cut, corporate taxes should be abolished, leading to lower prices. All taxes other than the income tax should then be repealed.

[went that way]

How is the Democratic Party a socialist political party explain.

Well, they support substantial wealth redistribution.

Now, I know you might counter and point to Republican 'support' for programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Now, people assume we support these programs, and we talk we do, but really, we would like to eradicate them. It's part of the long term agenda, I'd say.

And yes, we have tolerated terrible non-flat tax rates for too long, but I think we can fix that in the next four years or so.

Meanwhile, inflation will effectively do away with the federal minimum wage.

As spending is cut, corporate taxes should be abolished, leading to lower prices. All taxes other than the income tax should then be repealed.

"Now, I know you might counter and point to Republican 'support' for programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Now, people assume we support these programs, and we talk we do, but really, we would like to eradicate them. It's part of the long term agenda, I'd say."
What your effectively saying is the government will no longer fund your medical bills but that corparations going to do that.  If that takes place it will be in a disaster people would not be able to get medical treatment because it would cost to much.

"And yes, we have tolerated terrible non-flat tax rates for too long, but I think we can fix that in the next four years or so."
What that means is that ceo Bill Gates he will pay as much taxes as that Bum on the street.  I don't have to go on why that will be a disaster.

"Meanwhile, inflation will effectively do away with the federal minimum wage."
Now your saying workers will be payed less and less while Ceos are payed more and more.  Corparations don't care about workers, they care about profits.

"As spending is cut, corporate taxes should be abolished, leading to lower prices. All taxes other than the income tax should then be repealed."
How is the government going to pay for anything if it doesn't tax corparations.  Also if you abolish all other taxes besides income the income tax would have a magor jump just to have enough money to pay for it's operations.

As one guy(I can't remember his name) but he said the Dems realise that the restrictions are needed to make sure that the Capitalists don't destroy each other and undermine the workers and the poor. 

[A18]

"Now, I know you might counter and point to Republican 'support' for programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Now, people assume we support these programs, and we talk we do, but really, we would like to eradicate them. It's part of the long term agenda, I'd say."
What your effectively saying is the government will no longer fund your medical bills but that corparations going to do that.  If that takes place it will be in a disaster people would not be able to get medical treatment because it would cost to much.

I don't personally believe in medical care, anyway, but this is false. Health costs have skyrocketed since we started shoving the government where it doesn't belong - in business.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see you don't understand what a flat tax is. First of all, a generous amount of money would be exempt. Second, it's a flat percentage, not a flat dollar amount, so Bill Gates still pays far more in taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only those making minimum wage will get paid less, which is only about 3% of the population. Benefits the other 97%. And I would point out that those 3% don't stay at minimum wage for long, and that not all of them would be paid less - just the market value of their work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By cutting spending roughly in half. Of course, even if we did raise the income tax, it wouldn't matter, because products would be cheaper.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of this refutes my point that Democrats are socialists. You are simply arguing that socialism is a good thing. There we disagree, but it's a fair disagreement, and I respect your opinion. I am only calling the philosophy of the Democrats by its proper name: socialism. Not necessarily a bad thing, just depends how you want to look at it.

[went that way]

"By cutting spending roughly in half. Of course, even if we did raise the income tax, it wouldn't matter, because products would be cheaper."  Why would it cut spending in half how do you think it funds all those troops over seas and those ballistic missle sites.

"By cutting spending roughly in half. Of course, even if we did raise the income tax, it wouldn't matter, because products would be cheaper."  The products would be cheaper but the taxes will be forced to sky rocket to fund the things mentioned above.

"Democrats by its proper name: socialism."
Lets call New Labour Socialism too.  Most of the things called for by the mainstream Democrats is Progressive not Socialist.
Note: I'm in little bit of a rush because it's so late so I'm not answering all the comments at the moment.

[A18]

I support cutting all non-defense spending only.

Income tax would go up in proportion to the reduced prices. That's if we kept spending the same. I'm saying drastically cut it. Half sounds like a good start. Probably much more eventually.

I don't know much about New Labor, but the Democrats aren't progressive at all - at least, not by my subjective definition. I guess anyone's take on 'progress' is just what he wants to happen, right?

Substantial wealth redistribution is the most fitting definition of socialism. Certainly it has described these United States for far too long.