Capitalism will also cause bread lines but those will be permanent

[Sevyvia]

There, I have now, according to OP, scored a home run against the people who think piracy is bad and should be fought.

[oxymoronic]

There, I have now, according to OP, scored a home run against the people who think piracy is bad and should be fought.

what about todays pirates who steal software/code?

[Forogil]

And many of those other kinds of bees are also being pushed to the brink by the same causes that are decimating honeybees.

But are those bees important for human food? If you read between the lines in your link you see that they are not: they are threatened by agricultural monoculture and important for wildflower pollination.
A lack of wild forests with bees and wild-life is sad - but doesn't cause bread-lines.

- - - Updated - - -

There, I have now, according to OP, scored a home run against the people who think piracy is bad and should be fought.

Is there any source for this data? It just seems to be one of these graphs that everyone use without any source - and looking closely the temperature increase seems exaggerated, unless you ignore the ocean data - which is kind of odd considering that most pirates are found at sea.

[Nalorakk]

Well of course. In a non-capitalist country, people won't have money for cars, no money to buy pesticide, no money to use anything air-poluting really.
Not to mention everyone will instantly leave that country
So yeah, the air will be cleaner

Someone has a very poor understanding of economic systems.

[Keosen]

All these people defending socialism.

Defending-socialism is redundancy.
Everyone should be pro-socialist.

I can't really explain you or anyone else why caring about other people is the right thing to do, if you haven't figured it out by yourself.

[Zeek Daniels]

Defending-socialism is redundancy.
Everyone should be pro-socialist.

I can't really explain you or anyone else why caring about other people is the right thing to do, if you haven't figured it out by yourself.

Caring about other people isnt the same as giving other people things they dont deserve because they are too lazy to work for it. Its one thing to care about people in a country torn by war and famine because the dictators ruling it keep the people oppressed and you have to send in aid to those people because they have no option. Its another thing to choose a life of crime or poverty by making poor decision after poor decision because you know the governments gonna give you money. If you a black person living in the projects maybe dont have 5 kids and no husband in the house. Maybe if your a kid dont join a gang to try and feed your family, maybe convince your government to let you get a job.

[Freighter]

Defending-socialism is redundancy.
Everyone should be pro-socialist.

I can't really explain you or anyone else why caring about other people is the right thing to do, if you haven't figured it out by yourself.

Lmao, no. Socialism isn't some messiah to be worshiped.

[Allybeboba]

Defending-socialism is redundancy.
Everyone should be pro-socialist.

I can't really explain you or anyone else why caring about other people is the right thing to do, if you haven't figured it out by yourself.

Yes, socialism party worked out great for Germany as well the rest of Europe.

[skr1107]

On a long enough timeline, all economic models are transitional. Capitalism will be as well, and societies requirements will bring about something better.

[Vash The Stampede]

Your successful examples are - as has been repeatedly stated - not socialist countries.

None of Denmark, Finland, or Canada have the state take control of the means of production - instead they primarily let private corporations have control of the means of production, and in none of those countries the major parties are ideologically socialists; there are some fringe parties that are socialists - like Vasemmistoliitto and Socialistisk Folkeparti (but none of the "Left" parties are that left in Denmark). Thus there are parties that are socialists in those countries - and other parties that are not; why do you ignore that distinction?

Like I already said, they're moving towards socialism but don't consider themselves socialist. I don't deny this, I'm just showing that's the direction those countries are going.

China is formally a socialist country ruled by a communist party, but in reality it has become successful (after the fall of the Gang of Four) by de-socializing its industry. Basically economic reform with minimal political reform - that started earlier than Glasnost and is more successful.

But by far and large China remains a textbook communist country. Though you'll notice that countries work best if they're part capitalist and part socialist, and never 100% either. China did the right thing and removed some socialism but 25%-30% of the industry in China is state owned. The Nordic countries are nearly as socialist as China is right now, but not communist obviously.

Wrong in so many ways.

I correctly stated that USSR and PRC were socialist countries ruled by communist parties, do you deny that USSR means "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or that the ruling party was "Communist Party of the Soviet Union"? If you knew about the communistic theory you would understand that a communistic country would be heresy for a traditional Marxist.

However, socialist and communist have different meanings, and that was one set of meanings, but ideologically they can be synonyms, or communist ideology can be a sub-set of socialist ones.

People who usually hate socialism tend to blend the definition of the communism with it, because communism is perceived evil. Capitalism is private ownership, socialism is state ownership, and communism is lack of a state where the means of production are held in common. So which one of these best represents USSR? Yes it has the word Socialist in it's name but that's not how the country was ran. It also has the word Republic which the definition is "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch". That really doesn't sound like the USSR even though they did have elections and have representatives. Greece for example is really known as Hellenic Republic, which actually makes sense since they booted out their monarchy in ~1975.

[Forogil]

Like I already said, they're moving towards socialism but don't consider themselves socialist.

In reality they are moving away from socialism.

To be specific about this:
Social democratic parties often started as reformist socialistic parties, and at first saw the welfare state as a step towards a socialistic state - thus they originally had socialistic long-term goals. They are slowly moving away from that, first in practice and later in theory, as they have realized that socialism doesn't work and are abandoning it even as a dream. If you go back several decades you might see that they at one point relied on Marxist analysis and/or wanted to take control of key industries - but no longer.

As an example of this ongoing shift the Danish and Swedish social democrats have left the "Socialist International" this year - and I assume that others will follow. (Had to check - last time only the Swedish social democrats had left it.)

But by far and large China remains a textbook communist country.

Gross wealth inequality (not only worse than Europe but even worse than the US and Russia), turbulent stock market, coupled with political oppression?
What kind of textbooks do you read?

People who usually hate socialism tend to blend the definition of the communism with it, because communism is perceived evil.

Do you have a point - except to deflect from your ignorance?

Both communism and socialism are bad ideologies (etc) supported by bad pseudo-science by Marx and others. However, some of us have studied it - and for us it makes perfect sense that USSR and China were described as socialistic countries controlled by communistic parties.

Capitalism is private ownership, socialism is state ownership, and communism is lack of a state where the means of production are held in common. So which one of these best represents USSR?

Socialism clearly best described the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", as previously stated.

The state (or possibly some local government) owned the factories. It was certainly not private ownership where private owners owned factories and could sell them, and there most certainly was a state at that time - so it wasn't communism. However, the ruling party was "Communist Party of the Soviet Union" - as their ideology was communism; and many communistic parties in other countries agreed with that.

[Aphrel]

3. Climate Change... That cannot be pinned on Capitalism. It's a combined product caused by all of humanity. Especially lackluster industrialized regions causing a lot of problems.

Given that you have companys lobbying against any attempt att stopping global warming and reducing emissions, id say it is very much a byproduct of capitalism.

Look at any chart of emissions per capita. The United states for instance has 3 times as higher emissions as Sweden (per capita, so total somewhere around 100times more) and sweden is on average a colder country meaning swedes spend more energy heating houses up.

[Ishayu]

Like I already said, they're moving towards socialism but don't consider themselves socialist. I don't deny this, I'm just showing that's the direction those countries are going.

Denmark is not moving towards socialism, it's moving away from socialism. Of the last 20 years, 4 of them have had the left wing in government. The right wing has consistently slashed welfare spending and taxation.

Norway isn't moving towards socialism, either, however their economy has gotten a little strange due to the oil they found, which increased food prices and earnings massively, and therefore they increased a few types of subsidies. Taxes have not gone up significantly.

Sweden is going socialist, and it's also turning into a wreck, sadly.

But by far and large China remains a textbook communist country. Though you'll notice that countries work best if they're part capitalist and part socialist, and never 100% either. China did the right thing and removed some socialism but 25%-30% of the industry in China is state owned. The Nordic countries are nearly as socialist as China is right now, but not communist obviously.

Yes, China is moving away from socialism, and with every step they take, they get better off. Way better off, in fact.

[Vash The Stampede]

In reality they are moving away from socialism.

To be specific about this:
Social democratic parties often started as reformist socialistic parties, and at first saw the welfare state as a step towards a socialistic state - thus they originally had socialistic long-term goals. They are slowly moving away from that, first in practice and later in theory, as they have realized that socialism doesn't work and are abandoning it even as a dream. If you go back several decades you might see that they at one point relied on Marxist analysis and/or wanted to take control of key industries - but no longer.

I'm talking about social programs and safety nets. For example, Finland has been experimenting with UBI. No one in Europe goes bankrupt cause of healthcare bills. No one in Europe ends up homeless unless they have a mental illness or something. Society works and people generally don't care about taxes.

As for countries with the largest public sector, a large number of European countries pop up. Norway at 32%, Denmark at 31%, and Sweden at 28%. Give or take 5%. The more public sector businesses, the more socialist the country gets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._public_sector

As an example of this ongoing shift the Danish and Swedish social democrats have left the "Socialist International" this year - and I assume that others will follow. (Had to check - last time only the Swedish social democrats had left it.)

I don't think it matters when the social democrats leave this organization. They are after all the Social Democrats. Unless now having the word social in the name doesn't apply?
http://www.socialistinternational.or...ArticleID=1780

Gross wealth inequality (not only worse than Europe but even worse than the US and Russia), turbulent stock market, coupled with political oppression?
What kind of textbooks do you read?

Cause ultimately the Chinese government have control over everything. You still can't own land in China, unless I have that wrong? You're just renting it. Great firewall of China, and other measures they've done to control the public.

Do you have a point - except to deflect from your ignorance?

Both communism and socialism are bad ideologies (etc) supported by bad pseudo-science by Marx and others. However, some of us have studied it - and for us it makes perfect sense that USSR and China were described as socialistic countries controlled by communistic parties.

I'm pragmatic so I like words to mean things. Socialism requires that the means of production be held by the workers, but Stalinism always had control of the means of production. So they weren't a stateless classless society.

[Forogil]

I'm talking about social programs and safety nets. For example, Finland has been experimenting with UBI. No one in Europe goes bankrupt cause of healthcare bills. No one in Europe ends up homeless unless they have a mental illness or something. Society works and people generally don't care about taxes.

Which isn't socialism.

As for countries with the largest public sector, a large number of European countries pop up. Norway at 32%, Denmark at 31%, and Sweden at 28%. Give or take 5%. The more public sector businesses, the more socialist the country gets.

Wrong again. However, some of those numbers are going down - which according to you mean that they are moving away from socialism...

Oh, and best part: China - your textbook example has gone from 100% public sector in 1978 to 33% in 2003 (according to OECD).

I don't think it matters when the social democrats leave this organization. They are after all the Social Democrats. Unless now having the word social in the name doesn't apply?

Social and socialism are not the same the words. How many times do we have to tell you this?

Similarly "social democrats" are not to be confused with "democratic socialists"; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Cause ultimately the Chinese government have control over everything.

Political control - but economically people can own property in various forms.
What do you think they trade at the stock market?
Who are owning companies - i.e. the means of production?
How do you think people are becoming billionaires?

I'm pragmatic so I like words to mean things. Socialism requires that the means of production be held by the workers, but Stalinism always had control of the means of production. So they weren't a stateless classless society.

Your point being? Apart from confusing syndicalism with socialism?

[Vash The Stampede]

Wrong again. However, some of those numbers are going down - which according to you mean that they are moving away from socialism...

Oh, and best part: China - your textbook example has gone from 100% public sector in 1978 to 33% in 2003 (according to OECD).

Give me examples other than China? I can't find any info that suggest the public sector is declining in Europe. While the amount of businesses in China are mostly private, but the biggest businesses are public owned and they employ nearly 50% of the country. It is a decline from 100% in 1978 when they reformed to have a private sector, but 50% employment is still a lot.

Social and socialism are not the same the words. How many times do we have to tell you this?

Similarly "social democrats" are not to be confused with "democratic socialists"; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Yes but both have roots in socialism. Straight from the wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Political control - but economically people can own property in various forms.
What do you think they trade at the stock market?
Who are owning companies - i.e. the means of production?
How do you think people are becoming billionaires?

It says here that nobody can own property in China. Unless this information is old and that's changed?
http://onlinefx.westernunion.com/Lea...perty-in-china

For starters, no one - not even Chinese citizens - can own property in China forever, because the government owns all property permanently, Yang says. Rather, they can purchase a leasehold for Chinese real estate, which runs for 70 years for residential property and 50 years for commercial property.

[Forogil]

Give me examples other than China? I can't find any info that suggest the public sector is declining in Europe.

Assumedly because you aren't looking - http://oecdobserver.org/news/archive...tor_jobs_.html
And there are even more significant changes in some countries.

Yes but both have roots in socialism.

And as I previously explained the social democrats have become successful by abandoning those roots; first in practice, and then in theory - similarly as mammals like humans have fish as ancestors but aren't fish anymore.

Or in other words: the successful examples and social democrats are moving away from socialism.

It says here that nobody can own property in China. Unless this information is old and that's changed?

That article is based on the idea of property only meaning "real estate" - which is no longer that relevant for the economy.

However, property is more than land - and people in China can own cars, apartments, companies, and there is also intellectual property (even though the laws are not working that well) - some of those rights are enumerated in the "Property Rights Law of the People's Republic of China" from 2007. Note that people talk about owning intellectual property like patents - even if they have a shorter duration than land leases in China.

[Freighter]

Yes but both have roots in socialism. Straight from the wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Try actually reading what you link.

As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10]

[d00mGuArD]

I'm talking about social programs and safety nets. For example, Finland has been experimenting with UBI. No one in Europe goes bankrupt cause of healthcare bills. No one in Europe ends up homeless unless they have a mental illness or something. Society works and people generally don't care about taxes.

Well you are obviously not from europe
My parents went bankrupt from healthcare bills in France, and I had to foot their bills. And yes mental ill people do end up on the street. And people most definitely care about taxes
I am half French, half Greek and lived in UK for 7 years (and got that 3rd nationality also). So I know first hand about 3 of EU countries

Sure there may be 0.5% of world's population that live in some tiny countries, that are like you describe. Other than that 0.5% of the population, you have the next best thing. Sure you can QQ about not being in the top 1% of the world in healthcare, we should always aspire and compare to the better. But be a bit realistic, even in Greece, where there are hospitals totally free, you will in fact bankrupt from healthcare bills (!)

[Vash The Stampede]

Assumedly because you aren't looking - http://oecdobserver.org/news/archive...tor_jobs_.html
And there are even more significant changes in some countries.

The article was written in 2009 and the graph stops at 2005. So....

And as I previously explained the social democrats have become successful by abandoning those roots; first in practice, and then in theory - similarly as mammals like humans have fish as ancestors but aren't fish anymore.

Or in other words: the successful examples and social democrats are moving away from socialism.

Social Democrats believe in economic and social interventions within a capitalist economy. Creating measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Sounds socialist within the limits of capitalism.

Well you are obviously not from europe
My parents went bankrupt from healthcare bills in France, and I had to foot their bills. And yes mental ill people do end up on the street. And people most definitely care about taxes
I am half French, half Greek and lived in UK for 7 years (and got that 3rd nationality also). So I know first hand about 3 of EU countries

Sure there may be 0.5% of world's population that live in some tiny countries, that are like you describe. Other than that 0.5% of the population, you have the next best thing. Sure you can QQ about not being in the top 1% of the world in healthcare, we should always aspire and compare to the better. But be a bit realistic, even in Greece, where there are hospitals totally free, you will in fact bankrupt from healthcare bills (!)

I'd like hear the details of this, especially France. My parents are from Greece so I know a bit about their healthcare system. My grandfather had hernia surgery for very little almost free, and medication is dirt cheap in Greece. As an American with insurance, I had to pay $17k for my hernia surgery. Though Greece is pretty fucked lately, so I imagine there were cutbacks in healthcare. But the only way to owe a bunch of money is if you aren't a citizen of Greece or you have private insurance. Also yea, Greece isn't at the level of France when it comes to healthcare.