How about the Rwandan genocide?
https://libcom.org/blog/capitalism-v...art-1-12062014
So, your argument is wrong. Here we go, capitalist country going on a genocide. Guess genocides can happen in all kinds of countries and political systems, who would have thought?
By the way, to add something, I know you're pro-Israel. Did you know that Israel was founded as a partially socialist country?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/capit...raeli-economy/
And they even had tests to see if it could work under full communism (tests didn't go as planned, but still, the socialist part did).
Last edited by mmoc994dcc48c2; 2016-06-19 at 07:37 PM.
No, they are social democratic countries - not (partially) socialist ones. The difference is between redistribution within a primarily capitalist system, and replacing the capitalistic control of the production by "public control".
And regarding Somalia:
The Somali Democratic Republic reigned until 1991 - and was a communist one-party state (Marxist-Leninist - so communist); since then it has been civil war. I don't understand how you get to Somalia being a capitalist country.
Fascism or socialism wouldn't have made any major difference.
A mercantile system would have failed as badly as well, and many would mistake it for capitalistic - but that is wrong.
A capitalistic system would unlikely have failed as badly.
A need for protection of private property is essential to a capitalist society, and as a result, it is a ludicrous comparison to equate Somalia, which is in anarchy, to a capitalist system. (I've seen this stupid example so many times, I had to say something).
I do think that it is interesting that societies who call themselves socialist tend to progress towards dictatorship, shortages, and increasing control of the population. (Please remember that market economies with regulations and a safety net are not socialist).
Last edited by Sargerasraider; 2016-06-19 at 07:49 PM.
How does that link show that Rwanda was capitalist? Did you read it?
Remember this is primarily an agrarian society; and thus pre-capitalist at best. The article also claims that the ethnic cleansings were done to reduce competition for land.
The Kibbutz part sort of gave that away for most of us.
I have noticed that is typically what I see linked when people shit talk socialism and tends that way overall.
But instead of bashing authoritarian governments failing when they are trying to rule over them, they instead go onto them for socialism like the authoritarian government itself trying to rule poorly or with an iron fist had little to do with it.
Also gets annoying watching people trying to claim that socialism ruins innovation or entrepreneurialism or any of that crap. Watching them explain it reminds me of "Married With Children" when Al Bundy was trying to throw his midnight madness sale at the shoe stop and trying to explain what Werewolves had to do with women's shoes.
Something gets lost in the middle trying to figure out how those to topics are related. Socialism ruins innovation because..... Socialism.....
Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
"mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.
The Social Democratic parties in Sweden and Denmark have moved away from socialism as in controlling the means of production; and are "social democrats" not socialists - examples including no longer supporting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds in Sweden, and instead supporting flexicurity in Denmark- and de-nationalization of most companies in both countries.
Please explain how you go from private to common ownership of capital without authoritarian force. Real world successful examples would be nice.
The problem is that you can only point to examples of social democracy which are not by definition socialist. There is still private control of business. What you are left with is a smattering of authoritarian nations which have attempted to usurp private property rights and generally have failed. Then, you hear again and again the same "no true Scotsman" arguments. It gets very tiresome.
Is it so hard to keep yourself focused for 30 seconds? Socialism means taking over the control of the means of production, and removing competition (since the ones that control the production knows best, so why should they have two competing variants?) Without competition there is less innovation - since no-one has to innovate to stay ahead of the game.
Now add in cronyism and corruption and you have Venezuela.
My apologize if I came off supporting pure socialism, I am not. I am not advocating either pure socialism or pure capitalism as both of them are horrible in their pure states.
But from my knowledge of it, you seem like you are talking more about communism where the government owns near everything.
I personally advocate for socialistic policies for critical stuff where no free market can function and capitalistic approaches for luxury stuff where a free market can actually function with protections in place where a company can't corner the market and I also advocate for allowing private companies to compete against the socialistic programs if they wish to do so as that actually gives them something they must compete against and sets a baseline in quality.
I was talking about how people keep thinking that Socialism will ruin everything it touches like it is some toxic force when so is capitalism in its pure state.
Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
"mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.
This "amurican" fear of socialism is so hilarious to watch.
That is a misunderstanding of socialism and communism.
Communism isn't just aiming for government (or public) ownership of almost everything - but for more (even if ownership is important "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.")
Is Bernie Sanders running for office in Venezuela or something ? cuz I'm honestly confused how *any* of Venezuela's problems are because of Bernie Sanders.