It was the corruption, not the socialism, what little of that there actually was anyway. At no point did the workers own any of the production. You are pretending the definition of socialism is subsidies. It isn’t.
and neither did Argentina. What was your point supposed to be?
I’m a capitalist and I’ll prove it, just send me cash and I’ll provide you access to proof with a receipt, (access for verified accounts available for the duration of your subscription. Not available in all areas.).
It was the corruption, not the socialism, what little of that there actually was anyway. At no point did the workers own any of the production. You are pretending the definition of socialism is subsidies. It isn’t.
They call themselves socialist.
They promote socialism.
They were praised as being fine examples of socialism and progress when things were going well
Get out of the cope copter.
Outside of having socialist as an adjective, none of that is true.
You’ll be shocked to discover the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is a dictatorship and neither democratic nor a republic.
Oh, and the insurrectionists that attacked the Capital who call themselves Patriots, aren’t that either.
Words have definitions. When you ignore the definitions it shows you’ve no idea what you are talking about.
N Korea doesn’t have real elections.
Argentina did actually seize the means of the means of production, (oil fields).
This is yet another case of passing the buck on socialist unsustainability.
Oh, look… the Capitalist Bootlicker Brigade is pretending to know what socialism is again.
Yawn.
and neither did Argentina. What was your point supposed to be?
I’m a capitalist and I’ll prove it, just send me cash and I’ll provide you access to proof with a receipt, (access for verified accounts available for the duration of your subscription. Not available in all areas.).
So… which part of Argentina’s production was owned by the workers?