>>2131292>Smug smile, dead-fish eyesIt's called shit-eating for a reason
>so successful that nearly none of them exist anymore!This bullshit claim again. There are dozens of capitalist nations no longer existing. Judging the first socialist countries based on whether they still exist is like judging the first car for not being an instant Porsche.
- Cuba: still exists with high living standards:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=923279- DPRK? Economy? Until the 1990s they were cheek to jowl with South Korea, and after the drop in the 90s recovered quickly despite the DPRK being economically isolated and having only a small percent of its land arable. S.Korea leans heavily on US loans and subsidies.
"Muh repressions", anyone informed knows the S.Korean govnt had a conspiracy that goes all the way to the president, involving eradication of political opponents. Not to mention that while accusations levied at the DPRK are rarely proven, meanwhile S.Korea is historically known for multiple mass-murders, such as the Jeju and Bodo league massacre.
- China: deviated a bit from socialism but retains many characteristics and is on par with the USA.
- Finland: borderline socialist having adopted many soviet economic policies over the Cold War and has some of the best living standards in the world.
- Yugoslavia: Loose market socialism forcibly taken apart by NATO just like Libya.
The coming of capitalism to ex-socialist countries has not brought the 'brightness' described by its advocates, instead living standards plummeted from 1st-world standards in 1986 to 3rd world standard by the early 90s and have had negligible recovery since then.
The Success of a country cannot be measured by whether it still exists, otherwise all countries that no longer exist today would be failures. I'd hardly call the Holy Roman Empire a failure for example. The USSR lasted 3 generations and as pointed out in the infograph posted here
>>2131184It's successes are very tangible.
