Thanks, that definition would make it hard to find many socialist countries today...
No, that wouldn't be fair. Here's a list of former communist and socialist states:
Yes this is what I was referring to. I find it funny how every time I mention criticism of Capitalism and try to show that Socialism is not such a scare word, I get adamant reactions, as if the only alternative to the current dominant economic system was slums, concentration camps or genocide. I can't imagine thinking that the only alternative to destroying the planet (with current Capitalism) is making everyone poor and miserable. At the beginning of this thread, it took a long while before my interlocutor started understanding that all I wanted to discuss was worker coops and in general democratization of the workplace as an alternative to present-day Capitalism (absence of democracy at the workplace).
it's highly annoying when the US calls other countries anti-competitive, and demands that the rest of the world plays by US rules (which are designed to benefit US-origin multinational companies). Luckily for the rest of us, the US dominance is declining, and this is less of an issue.
The problem I see with this characterization is that the entire political window is being pushed hard to the right these days (by oligarchs using the media they own). In France for example, we have a "centrist" president who has claimed on many occasions to be a lefty, but all he is doing is destroying welfare and safety nets for the poor, the unemployed, the elderly. And mutilating protesters (eyes, hands lost) as well as jailing people they don't like (temporarily) for no valid reason.
Your post would make more sense if you avoided the left-right dichotomy, David, like this:
DNS altered wrote:There is a spectrum from pure socialism to pure capitalism and most nations and economies are mixed-economies, being somewhere around the middle.
Here you're sliding into the bias fwiw accused you of, i.e., saying that it's socialism when it fails, capitalism when it succeeds. It's much fairer and more accurate to say that almost every country is a mixed economy, although the mix varies across the spectrum we've just defined.DNS wrote:As long as the means of production is privately owned, then it's still capitalism.
Correct, there are socialist-type practices, welfare, safety nets, etc and those are good, imo. It's still capitalism, but with a mixed-economy. The best performing ones, in my opinion, are those that are centrist or center-right.
Not at all, I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Look at the link above of former communist and socialist states. They all failed, they don't even exist any more. The USSR was not capitalist. Communist Ethiopia under the Derg were not capitalist and millions died in the Red reign of terror and unemployment and poverty was extremely widespread. Similar problems and failures with the rest on the list.
It's a tough reality to be faced by post-Bolsheviks attempting to revive the red.
If you go back to the second post in this thread, right after i defined the topic, you will see I was trying to talk about democracy at the work place
As I attempted to make clear, we don't have any capitalist countries or any socialist countries, only countries with mixed systems, and yet you were blandly declaring some of them (the ones you liked) "capitalist" and others (the ones you didn't, the ones which "failed", "socialist".
I did notice that when capitalism fails you chalk it up to corruption and cronyism but when socialism fails, it's never because of corruption and cronyism but it's because socialism is rotten to its core.
I suspect that by this definition Venezuela is a capitalist state
Again, not at all, I admitted there is corruption and cronyism on all sides. My point was the socialist nations all failed. Most of the capitalist ones did not and in fact virtually all nations are capitalist today, with some form, some level and degree of a mixed-economy, but still essentially capitalist.
Well then we agree everyone or almost everyone is somewhat capitalist nowadays.DNS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:26 pm Again, not at all, I admitted there is corruption and cronyism on all sides. My point was the socialist nations all failed. Most of the capitalist ones did not and in fact virtually all nations are capitalist today, with some form, some level and degree of a mixed-economy, but still essentially capitalist.
That is because in a private, non-public, not traded on stock market type company, it is typically an individual capitalist who bought or started the business, who put up the capital, who invested thousands, sometimes millions of his/her own funds. And so naturally from that he/she would have full say in all business matters, although placed in check by the market and government regulations. For example, he wouldn't be able to price gouge due to markets and sometimes regulations as his competitors would put him out business with better pricing.
It is often a talking point that critics of the rich are rooted in envy.DNS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:16 pm I suppose if one didn't believe in or accept rebirth, it would be especially hard to accept as Prince WIlliam and Prince Harry would have no right to be royals in the same way the children of multi-million dollar corporations would have no right to take over the company without earning and competing for the position. For those that do accept rebirth, it might be easier to justify with karma?
The problem, as I see it, is that the (mega)rich have a far greater potential to harm their fellow beings, and for that reason should be kept in check a lot more than the common people."That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Few are those people in the world who, when acquiring lavish wealth, don't become intoxicated & heedless, don't become greedy for sensual pleasures, and don't mistreat other beings. Many more are those who, when acquiring lavish wealth, become intoxicated & heedless, become greedy for sensual pleasures, and mistreat other beings."
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn ... .than.html