@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
But yeah, in today's world, a socialistic country is much more apt to become totalitarian.
See, this is why i suggested that your thesis and Okie's are so very similar, if not actually the same. You start by asking people if it were not true that socialist countries are more likely to become totalitarian, now you are asserting it as demonstrable fact. But you haven't demonstrated it to be fact. You are assuming it at the outset. So, by definition, you answer your own question, and no other conclusion would therefore be possible.
I already used Venezuela as an example; address this, would you?
Not necessarily. I don't know that Chavez will succeed in creating a totalitarian state, if that is his goal. I suspect that might be his goal, but i neither know that for a fact, nor know what the probability is that he will achieve it. Whether or not it is, he will either have to accept some degree of capitalism or abandon the petroleum industry when the current infrastructure collapses. But one swallow does not a summer make. If all your speculation about Venezuela and Chavez were true, it would not constitute evidence about anything but Venezuela and Chavez. It would certainly not be evidence that socialist nations are "more apt" to become totalitarian, and it would ignore all the examples which contradict your thesis.
Of couse, some of the Islamic countries are not far behind.
This is just hysterical christian crusader nonsense. Please name for me a single socialist, Islamic nation.
And I didn't refer to you as a liberal; I used the term leftist. There's a difference.
Yes, there certainly is. Most of the world does not consider liberals to be leftist--in fact, among the Europeans, they (liberals) are seen as centrist or even center-right.
Just change what i wrote about liberal to leftist. Why do you assume i am leftist?
Are you insulted by this?
No--i do consider it evidence that you indulge in what you accuse me of, making assumptions. One wonders if you are not, by your own criterion, therefore narrow-minded.
You're still dodging the core question of this discussion. Now you have referred to "pure socialism." So how do you define "pure socialism?"