You listed two things and used etc.  I am not convinced you know.  Also, the bolded sentence is just your terrible bias getting in the way and you being as far from impartial as you can.

Again proving me right... for socialism the ideal of what marx wrout, for capitalism we choose the harshest reality we can... then people try to say that scandinavian countries is socialist not capitalist just so they can try to have a good example for them..

And of course Capitalism have short commings, but don't confuse estatism vs liberatism to socialism vs capitalism...

Please give one example of a real country with a socialism government and what good it have done.

Well sure who wouldn't 'prefer' that. But the point really is why do we need to have it at all? Especially when those who make the policies have the ability to exempt themselves. No ones wants people to starve or people to live in squallor but why can't local citizenry and communities take care of those issues which are very much local?

Because the more they tax the more they can rob, and the more they can employe their affiliateds... there isn't a case of investing the same money that a governement initiative gave better results than a private, and that is because the  deficit doesn't go out of the pocket of the politics (and in Brazil they are creating a law that politics don't have to pay tax because they are very important to the country).

You say I am proving you right, but I don't see it.  Grammatically, the bolded statement doesn't really make sense to me.

I also don't see how you think I'm confusing anything with anything.  

For your last sentence, Germany is a Democratic Socialist state.  I don't think I need to explain much, because if Socialism is so bad, Germany wouldn't be an economic power.

Yes I'm sure Germany is socialist, but not... they are left wing and have socialistic (or human rights) ideals, but aren't socialist, try to fit their system using the so called marx as you just called it before...

About the bolded I'm sorry if it was gramatically wrong since I'm not english speaker (but sure its easier to complaing about that than to defend your point), it just a repeat of "when we defend socialism we cherry pick the countries that we want to call socialist or the socialistic ideals (and the examples you use doesn't even match) and when we badmouth capitalism we cherry pick the worst examples (like the abuses or out ideas that they all want monopoly and suck the people dry).

Still looking for germany colective means of production and total people control of everything.

Biased or not, the statement is correct in every way. Socialism is a POLICY that forces people to 'share' as opposed to charity where sharing is done freely. Socialism requires the confiscation of ones real property or resources through policies that then redirect those resources to others who happen to live within the same country, state or territory...

Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Notice the word "control..."

To manage or control something you need authority which is where our government comes in. They control resources and distribute them such as capital or food or healthcare. Of course not until after they take their cut in the form of income or benefits or even brokering of power etc.

That is Socialism in action my friend.

I simply could not agree with you more :)

As for both of you, neither one of you want to admit you're wrong about what Socialism is. I didn't say "Germany is Socialist." I VERY specifically said they were a Democratic Socialist state. They have Socialist attributes, and no that "Socialist" part does not mean "human rights." That makes absolutely no sense, and human rights does not have an objective definition. It's a problem and the U.N basically decides what "human rights" are.

DonFerrari and Crazed, you both don't know what Socialism is. You think it is purely just what Marx says you need to have before you can achieve Socialism or what Marx wants of a Socialist or Communist state (they are different, Marx believed Socialism would come first, then Communism would follow). You guys are saying that Socialism is about complete control over the people by the government, but I clearly showed you what it meant and you still disregard my clear answer. And the whole loaded words, Crazed... you obviously don't study these things like I do.

To say "confiscate" makes it sound like Socialism is about taking what's rightfully yours and gives it to others. That isn't what it is. But no matter what I say, you'll put it back to that anyway and say "it's the same thing anyway" with your pedantic B.S. All I know in the end is that I'm arguing with two people who refuse to admit recognize that Socialism is not evil.

I agree with you, socialism is not evil, socialist people usually are... and having social concerns doesn't make a country socialist, if that was the case almost every country is socialist... as I said you cherry pick what definition you seem fit... cuba, china, vietnam, cuba, venezuela aren't socialist but germany is, are you sure?