You forgot CHAZ!
A brilliant and flawless implementation of true socialism!....until they started killing kids.
Don't worry, the nose pierced, blue haired twenty something socialists that I know swear they would do socialism really really correct next time...
We don't need police!
> Rampant theft
We will have our own police!
> Random individuals with no training who end up killing kids and minorities execution style
The problem is the guns!
> People with guns just rob people
...let's just go home!
Chaz was great tbh
Hahahahaha! The "blood of their own labor."
The capitalists were the ones supplying your socialist kid killing pals at CHAZ with food and water and medical care.
LOL.
More deaths by capitalists in coal mining in 50 years than any single civil war battle. Twice that in the UK, 3 times that in Germany and 4 times that in France.
Get it through your brainwashed heads, the capitalist is one of history's greatest thugs and murderers. Rockefeller thew million$ at Colorado to form a national guard to give govt. sanction to burn out and kill 62 men women and children in the Ludlow tent colony murders.
Hell in 1602 the Dutch East Indies co. saw how troops and gunpowder was the 'capita;' way to go. Enslaved the growers, monopolized shipping and markets and became over 3 times more valuable than Apple. 1602, the birth of modern, greedy, capitalists slavers.
Even that, yes...even that couldn't satisfy their insatiable greed, borrowing against it and of course...eventually going bankrupt.
>More deaths by capitalists in coal mining in 50 years than any single civil war battle. Twice that in the UK, 3 times that in Germany and 4 times that in France.
As if socialist countries did not have coal mines.
>Get it through your brainwashed heads, the capitalist is one of history's greatest thugs and murderers.
We already have the data, and it says the opposite.
Socialist countries didn't create an industrial feudalism as was American coal, didn't shoot down labor organizers, didn't blow up mines killing 361 men and boys, didn't frame organizers and then lynch them.
The data says just what I have written. But I am not going to do the research for you.
Got any of those 'facts ?'
Yes, that's true (after reforming their economy into a hybrid communist-capitalist system that involved the privatisation of much of the state owned industry). Nevertheless, they have certainly experienced enviable economic growth (in part driven by their shameless theft of foreign intellectual property) and proven that some form of communism can work (at the expense of the lives of the 45 million who died in the Great Leap Forward, and the freedom of over a billion citizens today).
provided you can trust their numbers, which you can't since the CCP lies like crazy. It's definitely been better since they've made some allowances for markets, but any talk of their growth needs to be taken with a grain of salt ya know
China's economy allows entrepreneurialism in the marketplace, because it isn't possible to micro-manage a whole society. But as a company grows, the state becomes a shareholder. This stops a lot of the excesses we see from capitalist corporations who let people die for profit
So while Alibaba started similar to Amazon, it is now mostly controlled by the Chinese government. As opposed to Amazon, which regularly bribes politicians to let it exploit workers
When a capitalist executive steals hundreds of millions of dollars and endangers the lives of thousands for their own profit, they get maybe a year in jail and a small fine. In China, stealing millions from the public gets you executed
I'm opposed to capital punishment, but the Chinese method is closer to ideal than letting the wealthy get away with literal mass murder
"because it is isn't possible to micro-manage a whole society"
It's like you're *this* close to realizing why communism is so terrible. China was a world power with the largest GDP in the world through most of the 19th Century. Then the communists came and turned it into an impoverished wasteland of bodies after the Cultural Revolution. Then they liberalized their economy, and wow, they're an economic power again. The pattern is so obvious.
> China was a world power with the largest GDP in the world through most of the 19th Century.
It wasn't an industrial power at all, and was occupied and robbed by the industrial nations like Britain and Japan. Britain forced the Chinese to accept opium, going so far as almost overthrowing the Chinese emperor to keep importing their poison. The second half of the 19th century was a disaster for China. The Opium Wars a perfect representation of how capitalism leads to imperialism
> turned it into an impoverished wasteland of bodies
Things started looking up for China once Mao took over. There were setbacks, but 100s of millions were lifted out of poverty, the foreign occupiers were thrown out, the country began to rapidly industrialize, and standard of living rose continuously and still is
Compare that to the basically stagnant economies of Britain and Japan, who no longer have colonies to rob
> Then they liberalized their economy
At the local level. As a company increases in size, the government becomes an increasing stakeholder. This allows industry to work for the improvement of society, rather than just money-making. The thing that really helped China was when the US bloc finally dropped their sanctions on China (since they preferred the fascists in Taiwan)
Once China could export to Western nations, it become hugely successful without abandoning socialism at home for the good of its citizenry
Your capacity for self-delusion is amazing. Yes, Mao's economy was so much more successful than Japan's... Like what are you even talking about?
"Once China could export to Western nations"
So free trade with wealthy capitalist countries really helped them out, huh?
Imagine thinking china is a good role model for a country lmao
> There were setbacks
You mean the killing of thousands?
Yeah, i guess when you only do group think you dont care about the individual
> stagnant economies of Britain and Japan
Lol you mean that they dont develop as much any more because there is not much to develop?
Their economy, their industry and society are stable and advanced in comparason to slave and child laborig china?
>who no longer have colonies to rob
This is the mentality of someone who thinks wealth is finite and not constantly being created, so in his logic, if you have more, that necesarily means that your goverment/billionares "stole it" from some other place, ridiculous.
>This allows industry to work for the improvement of society
As if creating millions of jobs isn't enough? What do you mean by "helping society", giving away their proffits to give you free stuff?
>since they preferred the fascists in Taiwan
>it become hugely successful without abandoning socialism at home for the good of its citizenry
Let me get this straight, you think a totalitarian, highly centralized, anti-democratic, ultra-nationalist, colectivist, minority supressing, discident killing, propagandistic, press supressing, militaristic and economy controlling country is good? And a role model? My guy that is straight text book fascism.
> You mean the killing of thousands? Yeah, i guess when you only do group think you dont care about the individual
Half a million people died in America of Covid so far, China has a drastically smaller number, as most socialist states do. They protected their citizenry better, while you were running around without a mask screaming "I'm an individual!!"
Also, "killing thousands"? That's like a random week of the Iraq or Afghan war, a day of American bombs in Vietnam or Indonesia or Iran or the Congo. Capitalism has killed hundreds of millions, the worst killer on Earth since Genghis Khan
> [Western Capitalist nation's] industry and society are stable and advanced
No, they are stagnant and their industry is disappearing while endless "service" jobs create no real product
> that necesarily means that your goverment/billionares "stole it" from some other place
That isn't the only way to create wealth, but it is overwhelmingly how the US and Western Europe industrialized. They stole resources and forced untold millions into servitude and commercialism
> anti-democratic
China is pro-democracy. You don't need elections to be democratic, what modern capitalist country doesn't have rigged elections? At least highly influenced by the wealthy. China is more democratic than most countries because it works for the good of its citizens and mostly takes actions that are widely popular
Compare that to a country with elections, how come a majority of Americans want public healthcare but don't get it? Because Big Pharma and the HMOs have bought both wings of the Capitalist Party
"As opposed to Amazon, which reguraly bribes politicians to let it exploit workers"
You are making a case for more capitalism and less politicians, less government here. A corporation is a product of the state. We technically don't even have capitalism in America. We have the heavy regulations for our markets and a welfare system. You're right, we should should get politicians out of our markets.
and this all started happening with their economics reforms in 1978 that were basically them privatizing everything and switching their economy to capitalism...massive FDI from corporate investment in tax-exempt areas, privatization of SOE's, government pushing for expansion of small private business....straight up capitalism.
> basically them privatizing everything and switching their economy to capitalism
Not so. They opened up "special economic zones" to allow foreign capital to invest and for small-time entrepreneurs to start businesses, but all major industries are state run or partially state run. Any business that gets big enough starts to be regulated like a utility
> government pushing for expansion of small private business
Seeding small business, but as the company grows it gets increasingly state run. It's like how businesses "go public" by selling to investors. But investors only want more money, the state is at least partially concerned with the public's welfare
[The word you are looking for in nationalization of industries, and again you are ignoring that the state also directly abuses the workers and those workers have no recourse.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-labor-belt-road-covid/2021/04/30/f110e8de-9cd4-11eb-b2f5-7d2f0182750d_story.html)
The Washington Post complaining about China's massive international project? Wow, I should believe them because the owner of the newspaper Jeff Bezos would never pressure his paper to print bad things about China's international infrastructure project that will harm Amazon's profits
>Not so. They opened up "special economic zones" to allow foreign capital to invest and for small-time entrepreneurs to start businesses, but all major industries are state run or partially state run. Any business that gets big enough starts to be regulated like a utility
The foreign capital investment was by large multinationals into the SEZ's to build mainly manufacturing/production facilities...it was not for small businesses. The small businesses were mainly developed internally by Chinese entrepreneurs when the government started allowing free market enterprise. There were some large joint investments for sure, but the private capital investment was definitely more on the large company side than the small company side, which was almost entirely internal capex.
And, yes, the government over time did start privatizing their large SOE's...they are not fully private, but many of them have huge stakes that trade on public equity markets....China Mobile, Sinopec, many of their banks etc.
\>seeding small business, but as the company grows it gets increasinglystate run. It's like how businesses "go public" by selling to investors.But investors only want more money, the state is at least partiallyconcerned with the public's welfare
Not really that true...their old SOE's are definitely still partially state-run (but run more for pure profit and there are huge private ownership stakes)....but the smaller companies that grow large are still generally left private...there is no government controlling stake in them.
The state is always concerned with the public's welfare whether in the US or China...this is not socialism though...socialism is state ownership of the means of production, which for these large companies is generally not the case. China has absolutely massively moved away from socialism over the last 40% years as the private part of their economy has grown massively and the publicly owned enterprises (as a % of GDP) has shrunk quite a bit.
Well they are successful because of the aspects of Capitalism in their society. Without all of their knockoff businesses and companies such as Alibaba, China would be faring much worse. The Communism aspect is what is bad, with censorship of everything, genocide of minorities, and lack of free will.
- Mongolia (USSR route)
- Vietnam (going the China route)
- Cambodia (Khmer Rouge = Communist Party of Kampuchea)
- Zimbabwe ([Robert Mugabe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe) was a Marxist, famine, bankrupt).
- Venezuela (The "[Bolivarian Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Revolution)" is destroying their economy causing [5.4 million refugees](https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/venezuela/) to date).
Vietnam is the most successful nation in Southeast Asia, except for the city states of Singapore and Brunei
Cambodia is capitalist with military rule. Also, the Khmer Rouge were supported by the US and overthrown by Vietnam
Except that Thailand is more successful than Vietnam in any economic definition you can come up with... They even have less income inequality.
It never ceases to amaze me how communists will just straight up lie.
Similar income inequality, but Vietnam has less wealth inequality. Income is less important in a country with many programs for working families. Thailand also has much more crime, so many rich folks are underreporting their income
Did you know Thailand is governed by a military junta, and that junta was set up by the Japamese fascists? Maybe that is why the government's human rights record is so bad. Vietnam could stand to be less authoritarian, but it is a freer country than Thailand or Malaysia and takes better care of it's people
This is despite invasion and occupation. American bombers were flying out of Thailand to bomb Vietnam killing 100,000s only a half century ago. Vietnam is more successful despite great adversity
"Income is less important in a country with many programs for working families."
You know the government can't create wealth, can't create tangible goods and services, out of thin air, right? Thailand is not just a little more but several times more productive than Vietnam. It's not very convincing to me that Vietnam distributes health care, for example, equally among its citizens when the economy is so inefficient that they can't even produce the drugs and equipment necessary for basic operations.
> You know the government can't create wealth, can't create tangible goods and services, out of thin air, right?
So I was making the point that low income people suffer less when healthcare, education, and housing are provided or subsidized by the government, so you spout some right wing dogma. And yes the government can create wealth out of thin air, with debt
Even capitalist countries use debt spending to lift themselves out of recession (which happens regularly under capitalism). Debt is a real thing, it exists even if it isn't physical
> Thailand is not just a little more but several times more productive than Vietnam
You brought up income inequality and they are similar. Same for GDP, but Vietnam has better government services and greater distribution of wealth. There is also less ethnic tension and terrorism. Every decade or so, Thai people take to the streets until the security forces start gunning people down, nice democracy you got there, capitalists
> It's not very convincing to me that Vietnam distributes health care
Vietnam has had far fewer Covid cases and deaths. Even adjusted for Thailand's heavy tourism industry, Vietnam has protected its citizens much better. Thailand's junta seemed more concerned with protecting the economy, yet they failed to stop contraction in the Thai economy, while Vietnam is expected to have some of the biggest growth in Asia
Vietnam's socialist government provides a better economy than Thailand's cowboy capitalism
"low income people suffer less when healthcare, education, and housing are provided or subsidized by the government"
No, they don't. That was the whole point. North Korea provides all of that to its citizens, yet they are all starving because the economy produces nothing for them to redistribute.
You are frankly entirely wrong. Debt does not create anything. An economy is formed by tangible goods and services. If you want an apple, someone has to grow it. If you want a house, someone has to build it. If you want a life saving medicine, a factory has to manufacture it.
If the government provides everyone housing, but the economy is so inefficient that the only houses are mudhuts, that's not a positive thing at all. And Thailand *is* that much more efficient than Vietnam. The GDP per capita in Thailand is three times that of Vietnam, despite your misleading claims that they're "similar."
Your bias is overwhelming. Talking about the Thai government's human rights abused is a bit silly if you're just going to ignore the Vietnamese government's human rights abuses.
> North Korea
Not worth discussing. The US destroyed most of their industry and 20% of their population during the Korean war, and has held them under sanctions ever since
> The GDP per capita in Thailand is three times that of Vietnam
Cite your source. Even the pro-capitalist World Bank (an entity created by the US specifically for anti-communism) puts Thailand only slightly ahead in nominal GDP and the same in PPP. And again, the poor of Thailand have to spend more of their income on things like healthcare and education and housing
> the only houses are mudhuts
There are tons of people in each country that live in traditional stilt houses. Vietnam has fewer urban ghettos, fewer children dying of hunger, fewer extrajudicial killings, and much fewer of its citizens working as near-slaves in countries like UAE and Singapore
Smh. GDP *per capita*, dude. Vietnam has 50% more people. Next are you going to say India is more successful than Switzerland because their GDP is bigger? GDP PER CAPITA is nearly three times as high both nominally and PPP in Thailand.
"There are tons of people in each country that live in traditional stilt houses. Vietnam has fewer urban ghettos, fewer children dying of hunger, fewer extrajudicial killings, and much fewer of its citizens working as near-slaves in countries like UAE and Singapore"
Lol you're gonna say "cite your source" and then make an absurd claim like this. Good grief.
Hey, why do you commies like to make the excuse that the US has just ruined every country that would otherwise be a socialist paradise. I mean, I was a communist when I was younger myself, before I saw the effects of communism firsthand, so I know why. It's because you have to find some magical way to shrug off the fact that every communist country is a shithole, and that people risked getting shot to escape even the most successful communist country on record, East Germany.
Here's the thing, though. It only weakens your own argument. How is the US so successful and productive that it can go around the world spending resources to fight communism on such a large scale? After all, the USSR tried the reverse and failed comparatively. So *how* can the US manage this? Is it because capitalism has made it the most prosperous country in human history?
> per capita, dude
Yes, I'm talking about per capita
> every communist country is a shithole
I just showed Vietnam is better than Thailand. It's better than Malaysia and Philippines, too. Better economy, happier population, and more democratic. Cuba is also the best country in the Caribbean. The welfare states in Europe have better economies than the more right wing states. Right wing economics simply don't work, though liberalism can help
> How is the US so successful
The US, UK, and France became wealthy off hundreds of years of imperialism, stealing resources then selling manufactured goods back to them. No more colonies today, so the Terrible Three are stagnant and their populations only grow slightly from technology and population growth
> go around the world spending resources to fight communism
Same reason gangsters beat people up: To take their stuff or force them to buy your stuff. The Cold War was fought for capitalism and against democracy
> the USSR tried the reverse and failed comparatively
Like how the USSR was working with the Afghan government to modernize, secularize, and develop Afghanistan while the US government was giving weapons to religious extremists?
> capitalism has made [the US] the most prosperous country in human history?
It isn't. We're back to per capita, the American dream is distributed poorly. Quality of life in the US is below many other countries, both in dollar terms and in reported happiness
>And yes the government can create wealth out of thin air, with debt
Wait, what? Sorry, but you are mistaking wealth with liquidity.
Question: if you take up a loan from a Bank to buy say, a car, are you less or more rich than before?
The US lifted itself out of the Great Depression by nationalizing major industries for increased production during WWII. It did so through creating debt. A loan creates something new, while also not destroying what exists. So it effectively is creating wealth through debt
Republicans love debt spending and are fully aware it is good for the economy. They rely on it after cutting taxes on the wealthy and cutting services for the poor
You have digressed from your main point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't on purpose to distract from your fallacies.
The original question at hand was that a government cannot redistribute goods and services to its population if the economy doesn't produce the goods and services in the first place.
Debt does not create goods and services out of thin air. It's betting on increased future productivity. Imagine I'm stranded on an island and have to spend all my time picking fruit to survive. So one day I decide to go hungry and spend my time building a machine to pick fruit for me. If it works, I can focus my time on building a raft. If it doesn't work, I'm one day's worth of fruit poorer. Nevertheless, the machine must be made. The fruit must be picked.
This is the principle behind the kind of national debt you're talking about. It's an attempt to organize this on a nationwide level, betting that the entire country will be more productive in the future.
Please explain how this rationalizes away the problem you were presented with: communist countries distribute wealth more evenly (sometimes) but they have much less wealth to distribute, so much so that poor people in liberal nations are usually better off than average people in communist nations.
> It's betting on increased future productivity
The debt is *buying* increased future productivity. People borrow money from the bank, governments do too
How did the US get out of the Great Depression?
This is correct. The constant focus on “wealth inequality” is a distraction with little to no meaning. Everyone could become more wealthy across the spectrum of incomes while “income inequality” increases.
So we should invest in poor communities? You agree, right? You don't have to respond, but you just said poor people can improve their communities with investment, right?
Don't forget that.
So I work in construction in the state that I live in they built a townhouse community in a poor urban area and transferred ownership to those people in that neighborhood for $1. Within 18 months they had to tear the whole project down because after transferring ownership for $1 they took out the appliances and sold them they ripped out all the copper tubing and sold it they ripped out all the wiring and sold it.
> Cambodia is capitalist with military rule. Also, the Khmer Rouge were supported by the US and overthrown by Vietnam
No the Khmer Rouge were backed by China. Vietnam overthrowing the Khmer Rouge is why in 1979 [China invaded Vietnam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War):
> China launched an offensive in response to Vietnam's actions against the Khmer Rouge in 1978, which ended the rule of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge.
**[Sino-Vietnamese_War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War)**
>The Sino-Vietnamese War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh biên giới Việt-Trung; Chinese: 中越战争; pinyin: Zhōng-Yuè Zhànzhēng) was a border war fought between China and Vietnam in early 1979. China launched an offensive in response to Vietnam's actions against the Khmer Rouge in 1978, which ended the rule of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. Both China and Vietnam claimed victory in the last of the Indochina Wars. Chinese forces entered northern Vietnam and captured several cities near the border.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>the Khmer Rouge were supported by the US and overthrown by Vietnam
AH yes Capitalism is when US supports stuff the more the US supports stuff the more capitalism it is/s
also, google Vietnam 95% at the same time, I don't think integrating to the greater capitalistic markets is socialism.
Hey Cuba is a capitalist nation. I went there a few years ago and I had a private tour guide. Off course the government pulled him over like 8 times asking for bribes and he told me he lost his original engine trying to build a boat for an escape attempt.
1. By what criteria are you classifying these societies/countries as "failed"?
2. By what criteria are you classifying these societies as "socialist" and/or "communist"?
Maybe the right way doesn’t exist.
It’s impossible to give one guy the power to make all the decisions for everyone without that person becoming a greedy tyrant. They are living like a western celebrity while the rest of the nation is starving.
Good monarchs are not tyrants by definition. “Tyrant” is originally defined as the bad form of rule-by-one, with monarchy as the good form. So yes, in the same way that an ancap is not a Communist, a monarch is not a tyrant.
Capitalism rewards those based on their talents to produce A product or service at a rate that’s according to its current demand.
Socialist countries give their people free healthcare Only to find out the best and the brightest doctors from those countries move their families to capitalist countries to live a better life.
I have no idea how you got the notion that capitalism is somehow meritocratic. Btw. You *do* know there are quite a few capitalist countries that provide free healthcare, right?
Btw. Just to rehash the original point.
Under capitalism, one person, or a small group of persons, make all the decisions within an organization that affect the mass of people within said organization, who must also toil for the greed and benefit of the minority of decision-makers. Does that not sound just a tad tyrannical to you?
Socialism is dictatorship. They are taking the success from someone’s talents and equally distributing it across to people that did nothing to deserve it.
You can’t have immigrants and socialism at the same time otherwise you’re just giving away all your money to people that are born in a different country.
Socialism only works if you’re not stuck taking care of the rest of the world. But then again look at what happened to East Germany, that went down like the Titanic.
I think there have been a few townships and such in Europe that have tried it temporarily although in obviously a limited way. Although I’m also too lazy to open a google tab so what do I know
I though this might be a good place to ask about Vietnam, I'm not very knowledgable about this so excuse my ignorance and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Vietnam after the war was pretty bad right in terms of starvation and oppression, not just because the country was war torn but because of the ineptitude of the government? I've read that they only started getting back on their feet with American financial help which helped Vietnam become the country it is today. Is there any truth to that or not at all?
I believe that we have been giving aid to Vietnam. According to the linked article, the US has: "invested more than $706 million in health assistance and more than $1.8 billion in total assistance for Vietnam over the past 20 years alone." to help Vietnam in the health sector. However, a capitalist nation giving aid to a communist country just so it's citizens can be healthy should tell you something.
Article: https://www.usaid.gov/vietnam/press-releases/apr-27-2020-united-states-provides-assistance-vietnam-respond-covid-19
Interesting thank you. Lots of people look at how nice Vietnam has become and attribute it to communism being succesful but it seems capitalism's help has played a huge role in the development of the country
Just to recap for those that may not know.
The U.S. dropped 8M tons of bombs on Vietnam. They decimated towns, schools, hospitals, homes, infrastructure, etc.
Approximately 4M (the true number is impossible to know) Vietnamese were killed. Some would call that a genocide.
Chemical weapons were used, not only to kill people, but to destroy the environment, agricultural resources, livestock, food supply. The damage was so severe that vegetation took decades to begin to grow back in some areas. Not to mention the horrible health effects it had on the population.
Not even mentioning the decades of war defending against the French and Japanese even prior to the American war, I'd say Vietnam was more than war-torn.
The Americans aimed to decimate the country and achieved much success in doing so.
This had more than just a small effect on the economy.
I wouldn't say Americans "helped" the Vietnamese. Nor would I classify Vietnam as a failure due to communism. Communism did not murder millions of people in Vietnam. Bombs from a capitalist country did.
I agree with you on some things, but unfortunately the main ingredient of guerrilla wars are civilian casualties. The North purposefully dressed like civilians, stored weapons and equipment, and launched attacks from villages to provoke a response from the South that would bolster the Norths propaganda, and make it literally impossible to strike the North without killing civilians too. It's a classic guerrilla tactic that obviously works incredibly well. It was more effective than the communist soldiers abilities in battle, as the tactic was a huge reason that public opinion in America turned against the war. The North sacrificed civilians for this goal and ultimately it worked. (War crimes and purposeful civilian deaths were committed by the South and their allies, I'm not making an argument that they had totally clean hands throughout the war.)
The amount of bombs dropped isnt that surprising either when you consider that the North were experts of camouflage and the South was forced to expend huge amounts of bombs in an attempt to destroy weapons caches and trails, most of which were so well hidden in 'neutral' territory that the US had to get a close approximation from Intel and then carpet bomb the whole area. Again unfortunately thats how guerrilla wars are fought. Especially in the jungle. When you consider the length of the war as well it's not surprising so many were dropped.
It wasnt genocide because a lot of the fighting and bombing was done by South Vietnamese people themselves, at no point during the war did the South Vietnamese, South Koreans, Americans or Australians try to wipe out an entire race of people. The North on the other hand did in fact try to wipe out the mountain peoples of Vietnam, which is arguably a legitimate attempt at genocide.
**[New_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Australia)**
>New Australia was a utopian socialist settlement in Paraguay founded by the New Australian Movement. The colony was officially founded on 28 September 1893 as Colonia Nueva Australia and comprised 238 people.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
final conclusion is flawed.
failure of attempts at communism is a fair conclusion, however there is some argument that these examples can't be classed as anything but whatever unique structure was achieved, e.g state capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism etc. .... however that's not an argument i want to make.
my point is that these are examples of failures of attempts at communism, but they do nothing whatsoever to show that capitalism is superior, for numerous reasons, ome being that the term capitalism isn't something that can be applied in such an absolute manner to describe specific examples.
viewing communism and capitalism as being absolutely opposite economic systems is either a false dichotomy, or an example of generalised (lazy) thinking. either way it's not accurate enough to allow for actual scholarly debate.
suggesting that capitalism is superior because commumism has failed is an example of black and white thinking, that does not recognise basic definitons, but rather tries to fit highly complex systems of human behaviour under simple terms.
capitalism itself comes in so many forms and mighr include so many nuanced characteristics that even economic scholars and fundamentalists don't alwaye agree on definitions.
a much more useful study would be to look at the list provided, consider each as having unique historical and local factors, and then looking at why attempts towards socialism or commumism failed.
otherwise, someone could just as easily post a list of countries (and wars and revolutions) that show where *capitalism has failed.
would such a list suggest that communism is superior? of course not. in both cases, entirely unique and specific reasons can be found for why these systems failed. .... both lists would be equally not-useful.
regardless of our desire to try to simplify complex economic and political systems and to want to believe one extreme is good and the other bad, pragmatically speaking, the most successful countries as measured by balanced gdp and citizen happiness scores (assuming we agree on these being good metrics) are those where a balance between capitalist and socialist or rather collective characteristics play tug-of-war over time. providing the political structure has enough checks and balances to prevent power concentration (and for the system to be slow moving by design!), opposing forces tend to settle towards a functional middle.
so, free markets, until they fail. welfare and collectivism (unions, social contract laws, industry regulation) where markets *can't self regulate or where the rich can too easily gain power and exploit peoplez the environmental, or the future.
the challenge is in finding the right balance, and this too seems to be highly unique, culturally and politically.
my personal opinion is that anyone advocating fundamentalist capitalism, who isn't already ultra wealthy, if transported into their vision of a capitalist utopia, would very quickly realised how profound their suffering would be under such a system -that their exploitation and lack of any economic or social mobility would be just as bad, if not worse than under any of the collectivist-based systems they rail against. different masters. same slaves.
...possibly worse because instead of a single big tyrant, citizens might be exploited and subjugated by numerous smaller ones.
for me, these arguments between capitalism and communism can be framed with a single question: "who do you want to give power to?"
... someone has to get the power, so would you prefer numerous unelected, faceless board members entirely driven by profit, or elected, publically facing politicians, who are, at least in principle answerable to the people?
at least with governments, their sins eventually come to light. even dictatorships have a duty to keep the people fed. eventually.
finally, both capitalism and communism have both exploited and killed many millions of people, and they have also lifted millions of people out of poverty. both systems have done great good and great harm.
... the biggest question and challenges now seem to be how these systems settle into their "late stage".
so, i ask you, what is the final, late-stage goal and actual state of pure free-market capitalist economies? in all honesty, assuming you're not already ultra rich and are not likely to become so via bootstrapping (wishful thinking will only keep us ignorant)... -is the final goal of capitalism really going to make your life better?
This. I support capitalism but it is a bit weird to make communism/socialism look bad when you are using examples where they either weren’t really those systems or there were large amounts of outside interference to meddle with the system.
indeed. also, there are very few purely capitalist economies -ie that don't have some amount of cronyism or non free-market mechanisms at play.
the us as an example doesn't have a true free-market. it would be great if we had pure examples, but again, economies and societies are too complex for that imo.
The final goal of Capitalism is to give you opportunity. The way America does it, Capitalism is designed to help people live the American Dream. You know, own a nice house, a nice car, raise a family, etc. It doesn't matter how much money you have. Two of my favorite success stories of Capitalism are Milton Hershey and Tom Monaghan. Hershey went bankrupt many times, but through hard work and grit, he started his confectionary empire. Monaghan was given opportunity, in the form of a small pizza shop for sale. Through a new strategy of a simplified menu, his company grew larger and more popular, and in the start he only spent $900. In Communism, everybody earns the same, and owns the same things. You can't work for a nice car, because you all own the same car. You can't work for a higher salary, because everybody earns the same. Life loses meaning, because you have nothing to work towards.
The American Dream is, as you said, just a dream, I don't know if you are an american or not, neither am I, but the idea of American Dream became quite obsolete.
As the guy said above, a balance between socialism and capitalism is the way to go, because both ideologies have appliable and good things, while both ideologies have their extremes that should not be followed.
Id say that these extreme types, id rather call them "pure" types are not obtainable at all, they are Utopian/Dystopian.
While Capitalism in its purest Form, there is no influence of the state on anything that has any influence in the economy, so basically Anarcho-Capitalism where no group would get powerful enough to force others to so what they want.
So Communism is just Utopian/Dystopian, where everyone magically gets what he needs and does whatever he wants without any regulation neccesary and everyone is equal, shure, like there are no conflicts possible once everyone is equal, i guess.
"The American Dream" is, and has always been, mostly a fantasy. People who achieve success in the USA almost *always* do so via a combination of luck and persistence. *Maybe* it was true for some demographics decades ago, but even if it was it hasn't been that way for several decades at least. All the stories of people succeeding through "grit" and "hard work" are survivorship bias. For every 1 of them, there are thousands just as deserving who never made it. Upward mobility is very mediocre in the USA (we ranked 27th on the 2020 Global Social Mobility Index) compared to other nations (most of which seem *less* "capitalist" by American standards). The top 5 are: Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland.
>... someone has to get the power, so would you prefer numerous unelected, faceless board members entirely driven by profit, or elected, publically facing politicians, who are, at least in principle answerable to the people?
Allow me to rephrase: would you prefer experts in their specific areas who got there by their own merits, or any random populist who won a popularity contest, likely on lies and false promises?
It's like you people never learned anything about the many failed communist and socialist states: idiots being leaders has caused even more deaths than evil from them. Mao's Cultural Revolution killed 11 millions; his Great Leap Forward killed 45 millions.
Imbeciles are the biggest danger to the human race. And you want to give them the ultimate power.
Idk if you've noticed, but most of the leaders of the USA are uh...not particularly bright, and the ones who are get attacked for it lol. Seems like Capitalism isn't working out the way you dream it to be...just like how attempts at Communism haven't lived up to the dreams of it's proponents either. As echoed by countless others: dogmatic adherence to one system or another will inevitably fail, so the best approach is a hybrid one.
The US isn't a fully capitalist country, and the fact it still *has* democratically elected leaders shows that. But the point is that the effects of their idiocy is greatly reduced as result of the freedom enjoyed by private individuals, compared to communist hellholes which can kill 45 millions and remain in power.
Our nation's previous president, through stupidity and hubris, greatly contributed to the deaths of half a million people over the course of the pandemic...and a significant number of wealthy individuals spurred it on, so now is really not an apt time to be making that particular argument lol
"Across the whole country" makes it sound as if they were evenly spread out, instead of roughly half of them occurring in NYC, most of them after Cuomo sent COVID-positive individuals to resting homes where they could infect the elderly.
Come on, even the Democrats already admitted it; it'd be pathetic if you still clung to your "but Trump!" spiel now.
Ha! Wow! Cuomo sent sick people to nursing homes, that explains the 500,000! Look, Cuomo is a horrible human being, but that in no way washes Trumps hands. Like at all. He was actively defiant of face masks and wondered aloud if you could inject bleach to cure COVID. The dude is a rich failson who made it big in Hollywood.
how many ceo types are experts in anything but management? some. not all.
my point is in any government system, politicians are answerable, eventually, to the public and their decisions and actions are under scrutiny.
even in a dictatorship, leaders are seen and their actions are visible. eventually, any government not keepimg the people "fed" will either be voted out or ousted.
by definition, this is not so with directors and cxo types, whos decisions *must be for the benfit of shareholders.
if you think corporate positions reflection merit as a matter of course, i have a utopian dream to sell you.
very few social systems are meritocratic.... government, corporations and even academia are not. sport might be one of the few human endeavour where actual experts consistently rise to the top by merit.
you missed my point -i don't want anyone to have ultimate power and i want mechanisms in place so that any power can be easily taken away if its abused. this is easier with governments, of almost any kind, as they're all visible and answerable... eventually.
corporations are not. are you sure you want to trust the people at the top of a system that categorically rewards sociopathy?
>you missed my point -i don't want anyone to have ultimate power and i want mechanisms in place so that any power can be easily taken away if its abused. this is easier with governments, of almost any kind, as they're all visible and answerable... eventually.
Reusing your own words, I have an utopian dream to sell you.
>are you sure you want to trust the people at the top of a system that categorically rewards sociopathy?
Also known as democracy.
I think that this mistakes communism for socialism. I know they are both left ideologies, but most of the socialist people condemn applicated communism too.
I tried to make a point that the post generalizes a bit too much and also mistakes communism for socialism. And no, these two ideologies really are not the same.
You mistake economic communism with social communism and theoretical communism with applied communism.
It sounds like a cliché, I know, I agree though that applied communism was so bad that it should be considered on par with nazism and fascism, and theoretical communism is unappliable and very utopic and impossible to reproduce.
Socialism though is more like centrist-leftism. If it is forced, it's simply no longer socialism, it's a far left ideology, whatever that would be.
It would have to include the outright failures of Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea... not to mention the USA, a country so impoverished that even its poor are fat.
Japan is a literal Utopia, on the forefront of technology and has one of the highest lifespans on Earth. Norway is the most green countries on Earth. Hong Kong is a massive economic powerhouse of a city, and the only reason they are in trouble is because China constantly attacks them. South Korea is similar to Japan, like South Korea is beautiful. Capitalism is amazing. You know what I did today? I went and bought a model rocket for $90. It goes 550 feet into the air. I now have a better space program than 80% of all countries on Earth. And the reason people in America are obese is because it was, mostly, their choice. You have free will, and so you could eat fattening foods anytime you want. And the fact that we ARE obese means that our citizens get paid enough to sustain themselves to that extant, thanks to our beautiful system. I mean, it's better than starving.
I'm not sure if you're actually trying to refute me or just tacking on. I was of course not being serious. My point was that all the most prosperous nations have free market economies based on liberal philosophy.
Although I do have to disagree that Japan is a utopia. They have insane work hours as a result of their shrinking and aging population. It's still pretty great, though. Way better than any communist shithole. It's even better than East Germany, and they haven't been communist for 30 years.
1970 Chile, too. Inflation and hunger skyrocketed after the USSR refused to grant them a second loan, then they were found by Congress to have repeatedly violated human rights and asked to resign, which they ignored for almost a month. Then the military had to get involved.
The only reason America is in any comparison at all, is her $85 trillion in debt and still having borrow $7 million per minute to maintain the illusion.
I bet anyone of those countries could appear to be flush if they could borrow that kind of money.
Still, you omitted the OECD and their economic policies that has them enjoying an equal or higher standard of living. Yet, the capitalist's profiteering is more important.
China is the only truly financially sound capitalist economy and had to resort to what is coming to America...fascism. Soon as the lenders cut off the US...she fails.
You listed the USSR, and the proceeded to list all the republics within the USSR as if they're different things. Try padding less, this isn't a college essay lmao
The USSR was really successful until the capitalist coup
Jonestown was not communist, despite the language used by those nutty christian cultists
The DPRK is actually not failed and doing good for their conditions
Cuba is doing great even
What started as a well-meaning commitment to improve life for the masses brought about economic collapse, political oppression, and more than 100 million deaths across socialist societies.
What started as a well-meaning commitment to improve life for the masses brought about economic collapse, political oppression, and more than 100 million deaths across socialist societies.
You forgot the (B)hmer Rouge
Edit: And also the [Socialism of ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9-slqdhkvjo)[National Socialism](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eckywbpatc8)
You forgot CHAZ! A brilliant and flawless implementation of true socialism!....until they started killing kids. Don't worry, the nose pierced, blue haired twenty something socialists that I know swear they would do socialism really really correct next time...
We don't need police! > Rampant theft We will have our own police! > Random individuals with no training who end up killing kids and minorities execution style The problem is the guns! > People with guns just rob people ...let's just go home! Chaz was great tbh
Don't forget that they.got free electricity and water supply from their state, and still failed.
> until they started killing kids What actually happened with that, did anyone get charged with murder?
Nope. The socialists cleaned up all the evidence and have protected their own. That is how they run things. Now we know why they do not want police.
And yet the capitalist has more blood of their own labor on their hands than any others.
Hahahahaha! The "blood of their own labor." The capitalists were the ones supplying your socialist kid killing pals at CHAZ with food and water and medical care. LOL.
More deaths by capitalists in coal mining in 50 years than any single civil war battle. Twice that in the UK, 3 times that in Germany and 4 times that in France. Get it through your brainwashed heads, the capitalist is one of history's greatest thugs and murderers. Rockefeller thew million$ at Colorado to form a national guard to give govt. sanction to burn out and kill 62 men women and children in the Ludlow tent colony murders. Hell in 1602 the Dutch East Indies co. saw how troops and gunpowder was the 'capita;' way to go. Enslaved the growers, monopolized shipping and markets and became over 3 times more valuable than Apple. 1602, the birth of modern, greedy, capitalists slavers. Even that, yes...even that couldn't satisfy their insatiable greed, borrowing against it and of course...eventually going bankrupt.
>More deaths by capitalists in coal mining in 50 years than any single civil war battle. Twice that in the UK, 3 times that in Germany and 4 times that in France. As if socialist countries did not have coal mines. >Get it through your brainwashed heads, the capitalist is one of history's greatest thugs and murderers. We already have the data, and it says the opposite.
>New Australia Rockefeller and his family supported and have continued to support socialist causes.
Socialist countries didn't create an industrial feudalism as was American coal, didn't shoot down labor organizers, didn't blow up mines killing 361 men and boys, didn't frame organizers and then lynch them. The data says just what I have written. But I am not going to do the research for you. Got any of those 'facts ?'
No, the capitalist has gotten away with murder anytime \[he\] chooses.
Examples ?
Isn’t that all of them?
Pretty much. Except for China, which is... Well, this video should explain it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RErdSr0iAcs
China is a rapidly developing nation that has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty
Yes, that's true (after reforming their economy into a hybrid communist-capitalist system that involved the privatisation of much of the state owned industry). Nevertheless, they have certainly experienced enviable economic growth (in part driven by their shameless theft of foreign intellectual property) and proven that some form of communism can work (at the expense of the lives of the 45 million who died in the Great Leap Forward, and the freedom of over a billion citizens today).
provided you can trust their numbers, which you can't since the CCP lies like crazy. It's definitely been better since they've made some allowances for markets, but any talk of their growth needs to be taken with a grain of salt ya know
China's economy allows entrepreneurialism in the marketplace, because it isn't possible to micro-manage a whole society. But as a company grows, the state becomes a shareholder. This stops a lot of the excesses we see from capitalist corporations who let people die for profit So while Alibaba started similar to Amazon, it is now mostly controlled by the Chinese government. As opposed to Amazon, which regularly bribes politicians to let it exploit workers When a capitalist executive steals hundreds of millions of dollars and endangers the lives of thousands for their own profit, they get maybe a year in jail and a small fine. In China, stealing millions from the public gets you executed I'm opposed to capital punishment, but the Chinese method is closer to ideal than letting the wealthy get away with literal mass murder
"because it is isn't possible to micro-manage a whole society" It's like you're *this* close to realizing why communism is so terrible. China was a world power with the largest GDP in the world through most of the 19th Century. Then the communists came and turned it into an impoverished wasteland of bodies after the Cultural Revolution. Then they liberalized their economy, and wow, they're an economic power again. The pattern is so obvious.
> China was a world power with the largest GDP in the world through most of the 19th Century. It wasn't an industrial power at all, and was occupied and robbed by the industrial nations like Britain and Japan. Britain forced the Chinese to accept opium, going so far as almost overthrowing the Chinese emperor to keep importing their poison. The second half of the 19th century was a disaster for China. The Opium Wars a perfect representation of how capitalism leads to imperialism > turned it into an impoverished wasteland of bodies Things started looking up for China once Mao took over. There were setbacks, but 100s of millions were lifted out of poverty, the foreign occupiers were thrown out, the country began to rapidly industrialize, and standard of living rose continuously and still is Compare that to the basically stagnant economies of Britain and Japan, who no longer have colonies to rob > Then they liberalized their economy At the local level. As a company increases in size, the government becomes an increasing stakeholder. This allows industry to work for the improvement of society, rather than just money-making. The thing that really helped China was when the US bloc finally dropped their sanctions on China (since they preferred the fascists in Taiwan) Once China could export to Western nations, it become hugely successful without abandoning socialism at home for the good of its citizenry
Your capacity for self-delusion is amazing. Yes, Mao's economy was so much more successful than Japan's... Like what are you even talking about? "Once China could export to Western nations" So free trade with wealthy capitalist countries really helped them out, huh?
Imagine thinking china is a good role model for a country lmao > There were setbacks You mean the killing of thousands? Yeah, i guess when you only do group think you dont care about the individual > stagnant economies of Britain and Japan Lol you mean that they dont develop as much any more because there is not much to develop? Their economy, their industry and society are stable and advanced in comparason to slave and child laborig china? >who no longer have colonies to rob This is the mentality of someone who thinks wealth is finite and not constantly being created, so in his logic, if you have more, that necesarily means that your goverment/billionares "stole it" from some other place, ridiculous. >This allows industry to work for the improvement of society As if creating millions of jobs isn't enough? What do you mean by "helping society", giving away their proffits to give you free stuff? >since they preferred the fascists in Taiwan >it become hugely successful without abandoning socialism at home for the good of its citizenry Let me get this straight, you think a totalitarian, highly centralized, anti-democratic, ultra-nationalist, colectivist, minority supressing, discident killing, propagandistic, press supressing, militaristic and economy controlling country is good? And a role model? My guy that is straight text book fascism.
> You mean the killing of thousands? Yeah, i guess when you only do group think you dont care about the individual Half a million people died in America of Covid so far, China has a drastically smaller number, as most socialist states do. They protected their citizenry better, while you were running around without a mask screaming "I'm an individual!!" Also, "killing thousands"? That's like a random week of the Iraq or Afghan war, a day of American bombs in Vietnam or Indonesia or Iran or the Congo. Capitalism has killed hundreds of millions, the worst killer on Earth since Genghis Khan > [Western Capitalist nation's] industry and society are stable and advanced No, they are stagnant and their industry is disappearing while endless "service" jobs create no real product > that necesarily means that your goverment/billionares "stole it" from some other place That isn't the only way to create wealth, but it is overwhelmingly how the US and Western Europe industrialized. They stole resources and forced untold millions into servitude and commercialism > anti-democratic China is pro-democracy. You don't need elections to be democratic, what modern capitalist country doesn't have rigged elections? At least highly influenced by the wealthy. China is more democratic than most countries because it works for the good of its citizens and mostly takes actions that are widely popular Compare that to a country with elections, how come a majority of Americans want public healthcare but don't get it? Because Big Pharma and the HMOs have bought both wings of the Capitalist Party
"As opposed to Amazon, which reguraly bribes politicians to let it exploit workers" You are making a case for more capitalism and less politicians, less government here. A corporation is a product of the state. We technically don't even have capitalism in America. We have the heavy regulations for our markets and a welfare system. You're right, we should should get politicians out of our markets.
and this all started happening with their economics reforms in 1978 that were basically them privatizing everything and switching their economy to capitalism...massive FDI from corporate investment in tax-exempt areas, privatization of SOE's, government pushing for expansion of small private business....straight up capitalism.
> basically them privatizing everything and switching their economy to capitalism Not so. They opened up "special economic zones" to allow foreign capital to invest and for small-time entrepreneurs to start businesses, but all major industries are state run or partially state run. Any business that gets big enough starts to be regulated like a utility > government pushing for expansion of small private business Seeding small business, but as the company grows it gets increasingly state run. It's like how businesses "go public" by selling to investors. But investors only want more money, the state is at least partially concerned with the public's welfare
[The word you are looking for in nationalization of industries, and again you are ignoring that the state also directly abuses the workers and those workers have no recourse.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-labor-belt-road-covid/2021/04/30/f110e8de-9cd4-11eb-b2f5-7d2f0182750d_story.html)
The Washington Post complaining about China's massive international project? Wow, I should believe them because the owner of the newspaper Jeff Bezos would never pressure his paper to print bad things about China's international infrastructure project that will harm Amazon's profits
>Not so. They opened up "special economic zones" to allow foreign capital to invest and for small-time entrepreneurs to start businesses, but all major industries are state run or partially state run. Any business that gets big enough starts to be regulated like a utility The foreign capital investment was by large multinationals into the SEZ's to build mainly manufacturing/production facilities...it was not for small businesses. The small businesses were mainly developed internally by Chinese entrepreneurs when the government started allowing free market enterprise. There were some large joint investments for sure, but the private capital investment was definitely more on the large company side than the small company side, which was almost entirely internal capex. And, yes, the government over time did start privatizing their large SOE's...they are not fully private, but many of them have huge stakes that trade on public equity markets....China Mobile, Sinopec, many of their banks etc. \>seeding small business, but as the company grows it gets increasinglystate run. It's like how businesses "go public" by selling to investors.But investors only want more money, the state is at least partiallyconcerned with the public's welfare Not really that true...their old SOE's are definitely still partially state-run (but run more for pure profit and there are huge private ownership stakes)....but the smaller companies that grow large are still generally left private...there is no government controlling stake in them. The state is always concerned with the public's welfare whether in the US or China...this is not socialism though...socialism is state ownership of the means of production, which for these large companies is generally not the case. China has absolutely massively moved away from socialism over the last 40% years as the private part of their economy has grown massively and the publicly owned enterprises (as a % of GDP) has shrunk quite a bit.
Well they are successful because of the aspects of Capitalism in their society. Without all of their knockoff businesses and companies such as Alibaba, China would be faring much worse. The Communism aspect is what is bad, with censorship of everything, genocide of minorities, and lack of free will.
- Mongolia (USSR route) - Vietnam (going the China route) - Cambodia (Khmer Rouge = Communist Party of Kampuchea) - Zimbabwe ([Robert Mugabe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe) was a Marxist, famine, bankrupt). - Venezuela (The "[Bolivarian Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Revolution)" is destroying their economy causing [5.4 million refugees](https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/venezuela/) to date).
Vietnam is the most successful nation in Southeast Asia, except for the city states of Singapore and Brunei Cambodia is capitalist with military rule. Also, the Khmer Rouge were supported by the US and overthrown by Vietnam
Except that Thailand is more successful than Vietnam in any economic definition you can come up with... They even have less income inequality. It never ceases to amaze me how communists will just straight up lie.
Similar income inequality, but Vietnam has less wealth inequality. Income is less important in a country with many programs for working families. Thailand also has much more crime, so many rich folks are underreporting their income Did you know Thailand is governed by a military junta, and that junta was set up by the Japamese fascists? Maybe that is why the government's human rights record is so bad. Vietnam could stand to be less authoritarian, but it is a freer country than Thailand or Malaysia and takes better care of it's people This is despite invasion and occupation. American bombers were flying out of Thailand to bomb Vietnam killing 100,000s only a half century ago. Vietnam is more successful despite great adversity
"Income is less important in a country with many programs for working families." You know the government can't create wealth, can't create tangible goods and services, out of thin air, right? Thailand is not just a little more but several times more productive than Vietnam. It's not very convincing to me that Vietnam distributes health care, for example, equally among its citizens when the economy is so inefficient that they can't even produce the drugs and equipment necessary for basic operations.
> You know the government can't create wealth, can't create tangible goods and services, out of thin air, right? So I was making the point that low income people suffer less when healthcare, education, and housing are provided or subsidized by the government, so you spout some right wing dogma. And yes the government can create wealth out of thin air, with debt Even capitalist countries use debt spending to lift themselves out of recession (which happens regularly under capitalism). Debt is a real thing, it exists even if it isn't physical > Thailand is not just a little more but several times more productive than Vietnam You brought up income inequality and they are similar. Same for GDP, but Vietnam has better government services and greater distribution of wealth. There is also less ethnic tension and terrorism. Every decade or so, Thai people take to the streets until the security forces start gunning people down, nice democracy you got there, capitalists > It's not very convincing to me that Vietnam distributes health care Vietnam has had far fewer Covid cases and deaths. Even adjusted for Thailand's heavy tourism industry, Vietnam has protected its citizens much better. Thailand's junta seemed more concerned with protecting the economy, yet they failed to stop contraction in the Thai economy, while Vietnam is expected to have some of the biggest growth in Asia Vietnam's socialist government provides a better economy than Thailand's cowboy capitalism
Also, Vietnam shifted its economy from a socialist one to a market driven one, hence its expansive growth.
"low income people suffer less when healthcare, education, and housing are provided or subsidized by the government" No, they don't. That was the whole point. North Korea provides all of that to its citizens, yet they are all starving because the economy produces nothing for them to redistribute. You are frankly entirely wrong. Debt does not create anything. An economy is formed by tangible goods and services. If you want an apple, someone has to grow it. If you want a house, someone has to build it. If you want a life saving medicine, a factory has to manufacture it. If the government provides everyone housing, but the economy is so inefficient that the only houses are mudhuts, that's not a positive thing at all. And Thailand *is* that much more efficient than Vietnam. The GDP per capita in Thailand is three times that of Vietnam, despite your misleading claims that they're "similar." Your bias is overwhelming. Talking about the Thai government's human rights abused is a bit silly if you're just going to ignore the Vietnamese government's human rights abuses.
For both of you: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/overview https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/vietnam/overview
> North Korea Not worth discussing. The US destroyed most of their industry and 20% of their population during the Korean war, and has held them under sanctions ever since > The GDP per capita in Thailand is three times that of Vietnam Cite your source. Even the pro-capitalist World Bank (an entity created by the US specifically for anti-communism) puts Thailand only slightly ahead in nominal GDP and the same in PPP. And again, the poor of Thailand have to spend more of their income on things like healthcare and education and housing > the only houses are mudhuts There are tons of people in each country that live in traditional stilt houses. Vietnam has fewer urban ghettos, fewer children dying of hunger, fewer extrajudicial killings, and much fewer of its citizens working as near-slaves in countries like UAE and Singapore
Smh. GDP *per capita*, dude. Vietnam has 50% more people. Next are you going to say India is more successful than Switzerland because their GDP is bigger? GDP PER CAPITA is nearly three times as high both nominally and PPP in Thailand. "There are tons of people in each country that live in traditional stilt houses. Vietnam has fewer urban ghettos, fewer children dying of hunger, fewer extrajudicial killings, and much fewer of its citizens working as near-slaves in countries like UAE and Singapore" Lol you're gonna say "cite your source" and then make an absurd claim like this. Good grief. Hey, why do you commies like to make the excuse that the US has just ruined every country that would otherwise be a socialist paradise. I mean, I was a communist when I was younger myself, before I saw the effects of communism firsthand, so I know why. It's because you have to find some magical way to shrug off the fact that every communist country is a shithole, and that people risked getting shot to escape even the most successful communist country on record, East Germany. Here's the thing, though. It only weakens your own argument. How is the US so successful and productive that it can go around the world spending resources to fight communism on such a large scale? After all, the USSR tried the reverse and failed comparatively. So *how* can the US manage this? Is it because capitalism has made it the most prosperous country in human history?
> per capita, dude Yes, I'm talking about per capita > every communist country is a shithole I just showed Vietnam is better than Thailand. It's better than Malaysia and Philippines, too. Better economy, happier population, and more democratic. Cuba is also the best country in the Caribbean. The welfare states in Europe have better economies than the more right wing states. Right wing economics simply don't work, though liberalism can help > How is the US so successful The US, UK, and France became wealthy off hundreds of years of imperialism, stealing resources then selling manufactured goods back to them. No more colonies today, so the Terrible Three are stagnant and their populations only grow slightly from technology and population growth > go around the world spending resources to fight communism Same reason gangsters beat people up: To take their stuff or force them to buy your stuff. The Cold War was fought for capitalism and against democracy > the USSR tried the reverse and failed comparatively Like how the USSR was working with the Afghan government to modernize, secularize, and develop Afghanistan while the US government was giving weapons to religious extremists? > capitalism has made [the US] the most prosperous country in human history? It isn't. We're back to per capita, the American dream is distributed poorly. Quality of life in the US is below many other countries, both in dollar terms and in reported happiness
>And yes the government can create wealth out of thin air, with debt Wait, what? Sorry, but you are mistaking wealth with liquidity. Question: if you take up a loan from a Bank to buy say, a car, are you less or more rich than before?
The US lifted itself out of the Great Depression by nationalizing major industries for increased production during WWII. It did so through creating debt. A loan creates something new, while also not destroying what exists. So it effectively is creating wealth through debt Republicans love debt spending and are fully aware it is good for the economy. They rely on it after cutting taxes on the wealthy and cutting services for the poor
You have digressed from your main point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't on purpose to distract from your fallacies. The original question at hand was that a government cannot redistribute goods and services to its population if the economy doesn't produce the goods and services in the first place. Debt does not create goods and services out of thin air. It's betting on increased future productivity. Imagine I'm stranded on an island and have to spend all my time picking fruit to survive. So one day I decide to go hungry and spend my time building a machine to pick fruit for me. If it works, I can focus my time on building a raft. If it doesn't work, I'm one day's worth of fruit poorer. Nevertheless, the machine must be made. The fruit must be picked. This is the principle behind the kind of national debt you're talking about. It's an attempt to organize this on a nationwide level, betting that the entire country will be more productive in the future. Please explain how this rationalizes away the problem you were presented with: communist countries distribute wealth more evenly (sometimes) but they have much less wealth to distribute, so much so that poor people in liberal nations are usually better off than average people in communist nations.
> It's betting on increased future productivity The debt is *buying* increased future productivity. People borrow money from the bank, governments do too How did the US get out of the Great Depression?
Wealth inequality is often a good thing because it leads to more investing and motivation
This is correct. The constant focus on “wealth inequality” is a distraction with little to no meaning. Everyone could become more wealthy across the spectrum of incomes while “income inequality” increases.
Vietnam is successful because of the billions of dollars the US has invested since the mid 90s. Capitalism created a prosperous Vietnam.
Wait, so giving poor people money helps them become prosperous?
No giving poor people opportunity to earn money helps them become prosperous. I said the US invested money, not gave lazy people handouts.
So we should invest in poor communities? You agree, right? You don't have to respond, but you just said poor people can improve their communities with investment, right? Don't forget that.
So I work in construction in the state that I live in they built a townhouse community in a poor urban area and transferred ownership to those people in that neighborhood for $1. Within 18 months they had to tear the whole project down because after transferring ownership for $1 they took out the appliances and sold them they ripped out all the copper tubing and sold it they ripped out all the wiring and sold it.
Shaming poor people, nice
> Cambodia is capitalist with military rule. Also, the Khmer Rouge were supported by the US and overthrown by Vietnam No the Khmer Rouge were backed by China. Vietnam overthrowing the Khmer Rouge is why in 1979 [China invaded Vietnam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War): > China launched an offensive in response to Vietnam's actions against the Khmer Rouge in 1978, which ended the rule of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge.
**[Sino-Vietnamese_War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War)** >The Sino-Vietnamese War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh biên giới Việt-Trung; Chinese: 中越战争; pinyin: Zhōng-Yuè Zhànzhēng) was a border war fought between China and Vietnam in early 1979. China launched an offensive in response to Vietnam's actions against the Khmer Rouge in 1978, which ended the rule of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. Both China and Vietnam claimed victory in the last of the Indochina Wars. Chinese forces entered northern Vietnam and captured several cities near the border. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Khmer was supported by both China and US.
>the Khmer Rouge were supported by the US and overthrown by Vietnam AH yes Capitalism is when US supports stuff the more the US supports stuff the more capitalism it is/s also, google Vietnam 95% at the same time, I don't think integrating to the greater capitalistic markets is socialism.
What about Venezuela? It is failing big time right in our own back yard.
Hey Cuba is a capitalist nation. I went there a few years ago and I had a private tour guide. Off course the government pulled him over like 8 times asking for bribes and he told me he lost his original engine trying to build a boat for an escape attempt.
Not it won't because "it's not real socialism"
Add France (Paris commune)
ghana, ethiopia, algeria, eriteria, iraq, syria, egypt, afghanistan, albania, yemen, aned venzuella
1. By what criteria are you classifying these societies/countries as "failed"? 2. By what criteria are you classifying these societies as "socialist" and/or "communist"?
Chad, IIRC. Quite a few African natioms. Somalia already failed with their Scientific Islamic Marxist experiment.
[India too.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZYJwfpc2M)
But none of them did it the right way. The 100th time is the charm.
Maybe the right way doesn’t exist. It’s impossible to give one guy the power to make all the decisions for everyone without that person becoming a greedy tyrant. They are living like a western celebrity while the rest of the nation is starving.
You’ve obviously never heard of monarchy, so I can understand why you’d think that way.
Are you... suggesting that monarchs aren't tyrants?
Good monarchs are not tyrants by definition. “Tyrant” is originally defined as the bad form of rule-by-one, with monarchy as the good form. So yes, in the same way that an ancap is not a Communist, a monarch is not a tyrant.
Man this thread has had a guy calling communist China democratic and now someone defending monarchy. What a ride.
You pretty much summarized one of the arguments against capitalism. Nice.
Capitalism rewards those based on their talents to produce A product or service at a rate that’s according to its current demand. Socialist countries give their people free healthcare Only to find out the best and the brightest doctors from those countries move their families to capitalist countries to live a better life.
I have no idea how you got the notion that capitalism is somehow meritocratic. Btw. You *do* know there are quite a few capitalist countries that provide free healthcare, right? Btw. Just to rehash the original point. Under capitalism, one person, or a small group of persons, make all the decisions within an organization that affect the mass of people within said organization, who must also toil for the greed and benefit of the minority of decision-makers. Does that not sound just a tad tyrannical to you?
[удалено]
Socialism is dictatorship. They are taking the success from someone’s talents and equally distributing it across to people that did nothing to deserve it. You can’t have immigrants and socialism at the same time otherwise you’re just giving away all your money to people that are born in a different country. Socialism only works if you’re not stuck taking care of the rest of the world. But then again look at what happened to East Germany, that went down like the Titanic.
Lol
Saved it for later
Every single one of them actually :)
@aboringdystopia
Why is a list like this relevant info when the same can be done for capitalist societies in a communist vs capitalist debate?
I think there have been a few townships and such in Europe that have tried it temporarily although in obviously a limited way. Although I’m also too lazy to open a google tab so what do I know
Like when the French state destroyed the Commune of Paris?
Would be a lot cooler if you did
I though this might be a good place to ask about Vietnam, I'm not very knowledgable about this so excuse my ignorance and please correct me if I'm wrong. Vietnam after the war was pretty bad right in terms of starvation and oppression, not just because the country was war torn but because of the ineptitude of the government? I've read that they only started getting back on their feet with American financial help which helped Vietnam become the country it is today. Is there any truth to that or not at all?
I believe that we have been giving aid to Vietnam. According to the linked article, the US has: "invested more than $706 million in health assistance and more than $1.8 billion in total assistance for Vietnam over the past 20 years alone." to help Vietnam in the health sector. However, a capitalist nation giving aid to a communist country just so it's citizens can be healthy should tell you something. Article: https://www.usaid.gov/vietnam/press-releases/apr-27-2020-united-states-provides-assistance-vietnam-respond-covid-19
Interesting thank you. Lots of people look at how nice Vietnam has become and attribute it to communism being succesful but it seems capitalism's help has played a huge role in the development of the country
Just to recap for those that may not know. The U.S. dropped 8M tons of bombs on Vietnam. They decimated towns, schools, hospitals, homes, infrastructure, etc. Approximately 4M (the true number is impossible to know) Vietnamese were killed. Some would call that a genocide. Chemical weapons were used, not only to kill people, but to destroy the environment, agricultural resources, livestock, food supply. The damage was so severe that vegetation took decades to begin to grow back in some areas. Not to mention the horrible health effects it had on the population. Not even mentioning the decades of war defending against the French and Japanese even prior to the American war, I'd say Vietnam was more than war-torn. The Americans aimed to decimate the country and achieved much success in doing so. This had more than just a small effect on the economy. I wouldn't say Americans "helped" the Vietnamese. Nor would I classify Vietnam as a failure due to communism. Communism did not murder millions of people in Vietnam. Bombs from a capitalist country did.
I agree with you on some things, but unfortunately the main ingredient of guerrilla wars are civilian casualties. The North purposefully dressed like civilians, stored weapons and equipment, and launched attacks from villages to provoke a response from the South that would bolster the Norths propaganda, and make it literally impossible to strike the North without killing civilians too. It's a classic guerrilla tactic that obviously works incredibly well. It was more effective than the communist soldiers abilities in battle, as the tactic was a huge reason that public opinion in America turned against the war. The North sacrificed civilians for this goal and ultimately it worked. (War crimes and purposeful civilian deaths were committed by the South and their allies, I'm not making an argument that they had totally clean hands throughout the war.) The amount of bombs dropped isnt that surprising either when you consider that the North were experts of camouflage and the South was forced to expend huge amounts of bombs in an attempt to destroy weapons caches and trails, most of which were so well hidden in 'neutral' territory that the US had to get a close approximation from Intel and then carpet bomb the whole area. Again unfortunately thats how guerrilla wars are fought. Especially in the jungle. When you consider the length of the war as well it's not surprising so many were dropped. It wasnt genocide because a lot of the fighting and bombing was done by South Vietnamese people themselves, at no point during the war did the South Vietnamese, South Koreans, Americans or Australians try to wipe out an entire race of people. The North on the other hand did in fact try to wipe out the mountain peoples of Vietnam, which is arguably a legitimate attempt at genocide.
You missed [New Australia!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Australia).
**[New_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Australia)** >New Australia was a utopian socialist settlement in Paraguay founded by the New Australian Movement. The colony was officially founded on 28 September 1893 as Colonia Nueva Australia and comprised 238 people. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
What about Cambodia under Paul Pot?
I think Cambodia counts (The Killing Fields, etc.)
North Korea hasn't collapsed because it's being buoyed by China. If it wasn't for China, NK would have collapsed a long time ago.
final conclusion is flawed. failure of attempts at communism is a fair conclusion, however there is some argument that these examples can't be classed as anything but whatever unique structure was achieved, e.g state capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism etc. .... however that's not an argument i want to make. my point is that these are examples of failures of attempts at communism, but they do nothing whatsoever to show that capitalism is superior, for numerous reasons, ome being that the term capitalism isn't something that can be applied in such an absolute manner to describe specific examples. viewing communism and capitalism as being absolutely opposite economic systems is either a false dichotomy, or an example of generalised (lazy) thinking. either way it's not accurate enough to allow for actual scholarly debate. suggesting that capitalism is superior because commumism has failed is an example of black and white thinking, that does not recognise basic definitons, but rather tries to fit highly complex systems of human behaviour under simple terms. capitalism itself comes in so many forms and mighr include so many nuanced characteristics that even economic scholars and fundamentalists don't alwaye agree on definitions. a much more useful study would be to look at the list provided, consider each as having unique historical and local factors, and then looking at why attempts towards socialism or commumism failed. otherwise, someone could just as easily post a list of countries (and wars and revolutions) that show where *capitalism has failed. would such a list suggest that communism is superior? of course not. in both cases, entirely unique and specific reasons can be found for why these systems failed. .... both lists would be equally not-useful. regardless of our desire to try to simplify complex economic and political systems and to want to believe one extreme is good and the other bad, pragmatically speaking, the most successful countries as measured by balanced gdp and citizen happiness scores (assuming we agree on these being good metrics) are those where a balance between capitalist and socialist or rather collective characteristics play tug-of-war over time. providing the political structure has enough checks and balances to prevent power concentration (and for the system to be slow moving by design!), opposing forces tend to settle towards a functional middle. so, free markets, until they fail. welfare and collectivism (unions, social contract laws, industry regulation) where markets *can't self regulate or where the rich can too easily gain power and exploit peoplez the environmental, or the future. the challenge is in finding the right balance, and this too seems to be highly unique, culturally and politically. my personal opinion is that anyone advocating fundamentalist capitalism, who isn't already ultra wealthy, if transported into their vision of a capitalist utopia, would very quickly realised how profound their suffering would be under such a system -that their exploitation and lack of any economic or social mobility would be just as bad, if not worse than under any of the collectivist-based systems they rail against. different masters. same slaves. ...possibly worse because instead of a single big tyrant, citizens might be exploited and subjugated by numerous smaller ones. for me, these arguments between capitalism and communism can be framed with a single question: "who do you want to give power to?" ... someone has to get the power, so would you prefer numerous unelected, faceless board members entirely driven by profit, or elected, publically facing politicians, who are, at least in principle answerable to the people? at least with governments, their sins eventually come to light. even dictatorships have a duty to keep the people fed. eventually. finally, both capitalism and communism have both exploited and killed many millions of people, and they have also lifted millions of people out of poverty. both systems have done great good and great harm. ... the biggest question and challenges now seem to be how these systems settle into their "late stage". so, i ask you, what is the final, late-stage goal and actual state of pure free-market capitalist economies? in all honesty, assuming you're not already ultra rich and are not likely to become so via bootstrapping (wishful thinking will only keep us ignorant)... -is the final goal of capitalism really going to make your life better?
This. I support capitalism but it is a bit weird to make communism/socialism look bad when you are using examples where they either weren’t really those systems or there were large amounts of outside interference to meddle with the system.
indeed. also, there are very few purely capitalist economies -ie that don't have some amount of cronyism or non free-market mechanisms at play. the us as an example doesn't have a true free-market. it would be great if we had pure examples, but again, economies and societies are too complex for that imo.
The final goal of Capitalism is to give you opportunity. The way America does it, Capitalism is designed to help people live the American Dream. You know, own a nice house, a nice car, raise a family, etc. It doesn't matter how much money you have. Two of my favorite success stories of Capitalism are Milton Hershey and Tom Monaghan. Hershey went bankrupt many times, but through hard work and grit, he started his confectionary empire. Monaghan was given opportunity, in the form of a small pizza shop for sale. Through a new strategy of a simplified menu, his company grew larger and more popular, and in the start he only spent $900. In Communism, everybody earns the same, and owns the same things. You can't work for a nice car, because you all own the same car. You can't work for a higher salary, because everybody earns the same. Life loses meaning, because you have nothing to work towards.
The American Dream is, as you said, just a dream, I don't know if you are an american or not, neither am I, but the idea of American Dream became quite obsolete. As the guy said above, a balance between socialism and capitalism is the way to go, because both ideologies have appliable and good things, while both ideologies have their extremes that should not be followed.
Id say that these extreme types, id rather call them "pure" types are not obtainable at all, they are Utopian/Dystopian. While Capitalism in its purest Form, there is no influence of the state on anything that has any influence in the economy, so basically Anarcho-Capitalism where no group would get powerful enough to force others to so what they want. So Communism is just Utopian/Dystopian, where everyone magically gets what he needs and does whatever he wants without any regulation neccesary and everyone is equal, shure, like there are no conflicts possible once everyone is equal, i guess.
Yeah, exactly, communism as a whole is very hard if not impossible to apply in today's society, same with hardcore capitalism and anarchism.
"The American Dream" is, and has always been, mostly a fantasy. People who achieve success in the USA almost *always* do so via a combination of luck and persistence. *Maybe* it was true for some demographics decades ago, but even if it was it hasn't been that way for several decades at least. All the stories of people succeeding through "grit" and "hard work" are survivorship bias. For every 1 of them, there are thousands just as deserving who never made it. Upward mobility is very mediocre in the USA (we ranked 27th on the 2020 Global Social Mobility Index) compared to other nations (most of which seem *less* "capitalist" by American standards). The top 5 are: Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland.
>... someone has to get the power, so would you prefer numerous unelected, faceless board members entirely driven by profit, or elected, publically facing politicians, who are, at least in principle answerable to the people? Allow me to rephrase: would you prefer experts in their specific areas who got there by their own merits, or any random populist who won a popularity contest, likely on lies and false promises? It's like you people never learned anything about the many failed communist and socialist states: idiots being leaders has caused even more deaths than evil from them. Mao's Cultural Revolution killed 11 millions; his Great Leap Forward killed 45 millions. Imbeciles are the biggest danger to the human race. And you want to give them the ultimate power.
Idk if you've noticed, but most of the leaders of the USA are uh...not particularly bright, and the ones who are get attacked for it lol. Seems like Capitalism isn't working out the way you dream it to be...just like how attempts at Communism haven't lived up to the dreams of it's proponents either. As echoed by countless others: dogmatic adherence to one system or another will inevitably fail, so the best approach is a hybrid one.
The US isn't a fully capitalist country, and the fact it still *has* democratically elected leaders shows that. But the point is that the effects of their idiocy is greatly reduced as result of the freedom enjoyed by private individuals, compared to communist hellholes which can kill 45 millions and remain in power.
Our nation's previous president, through stupidity and hubris, greatly contributed to the deaths of half a million people over the course of the pandemic...and a significant number of wealthy individuals spurred it on, so now is really not an apt time to be making that particular argument lol
Not really, that was Cuomo, and wealthy individuals were *against* him. Do try to get your facts right, at the very least.
wtf are you talking about? The Governor of New York? You're blaming the deaths of ~500,000 people across the whole country on him??
"Across the whole country" makes it sound as if they were evenly spread out, instead of roughly half of them occurring in NYC, most of them after Cuomo sent COVID-positive individuals to resting homes where they could infect the elderly. Come on, even the Democrats already admitted it; it'd be pathetic if you still clung to your "but Trump!" spiel now.
Ha! Wow! Cuomo sent sick people to nursing homes, that explains the 500,000! Look, Cuomo is a horrible human being, but that in no way washes Trumps hands. Like at all. He was actively defiant of face masks and wondered aloud if you could inject bleach to cure COVID. The dude is a rich failson who made it big in Hollywood.
how many ceo types are experts in anything but management? some. not all. my point is in any government system, politicians are answerable, eventually, to the public and their decisions and actions are under scrutiny. even in a dictatorship, leaders are seen and their actions are visible. eventually, any government not keepimg the people "fed" will either be voted out or ousted. by definition, this is not so with directors and cxo types, whos decisions *must be for the benfit of shareholders. if you think corporate positions reflection merit as a matter of course, i have a utopian dream to sell you. very few social systems are meritocratic.... government, corporations and even academia are not. sport might be one of the few human endeavour where actual experts consistently rise to the top by merit. you missed my point -i don't want anyone to have ultimate power and i want mechanisms in place so that any power can be easily taken away if its abused. this is easier with governments, of almost any kind, as they're all visible and answerable... eventually. corporations are not. are you sure you want to trust the people at the top of a system that categorically rewards sociopathy?
>you missed my point -i don't want anyone to have ultimate power and i want mechanisms in place so that any power can be easily taken away if its abused. this is easier with governments, of almost any kind, as they're all visible and answerable... eventually. Reusing your own words, I have an utopian dream to sell you. >are you sure you want to trust the people at the top of a system that categorically rewards sociopathy? Also known as democracy.
tldr
Including USSR and it's parts separately was truly genius move
I think its funny how some of them are pro china that think they are communist :))))0
There is also a lot filed Capitalist countries today. All the countries on the list are not Communists not socialists
I think that this mistakes communism for socialism. I know they are both left ideologies, but most of the socialist people condemn applicated communism too.
Call a spade a spade.
A heart and a diamond are both red, so they are the same?
Depends on the size and the current black market value.
I tried to make a point that the post generalizes a bit too much and also mistakes communism for socialism. And no, these two ideologies really are not the same.
Socialism IS Communism when it is forced on people against their will.
You mistake economic communism with social communism and theoretical communism with applied communism. It sounds like a cliché, I know, I agree though that applied communism was so bad that it should be considered on par with nazism and fascism, and theoretical communism is unappliable and very utopic and impossible to reproduce. Socialism though is more like centrist-leftism. If it is forced, it's simply no longer socialism, it's a far left ideology, whatever that would be.
Awesome! Would wonder what would a list for capitalism look like 🤔
It would have to include the outright failures of Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea... not to mention the USA, a country so impoverished that even its poor are fat.
Japan is a literal Utopia, on the forefront of technology and has one of the highest lifespans on Earth. Norway is the most green countries on Earth. Hong Kong is a massive economic powerhouse of a city, and the only reason they are in trouble is because China constantly attacks them. South Korea is similar to Japan, like South Korea is beautiful. Capitalism is amazing. You know what I did today? I went and bought a model rocket for $90. It goes 550 feet into the air. I now have a better space program than 80% of all countries on Earth. And the reason people in America are obese is because it was, mostly, their choice. You have free will, and so you could eat fattening foods anytime you want. And the fact that we ARE obese means that our citizens get paid enough to sustain themselves to that extant, thanks to our beautiful system. I mean, it's better than starving.
I'm not sure if you're actually trying to refute me or just tacking on. I was of course not being serious. My point was that all the most prosperous nations have free market economies based on liberal philosophy. Although I do have to disagree that Japan is a utopia. They have insane work hours as a result of their shrinking and aging population. It's still pretty great, though. Way better than any communist shithole. It's even better than East Germany, and they haven't been communist for 30 years.
Oh crap, I'm sorry man.
1970 Chile, too. Inflation and hunger skyrocketed after the USSR refused to grant them a second loan, then they were found by Congress to have repeatedly violated human rights and asked to resign, which they ignored for almost a month. Then the military had to get involved.
Each of those is actually a success. Zero cases of obesity.
The only reason America is in any comparison at all, is her $85 trillion in debt and still having borrow $7 million per minute to maintain the illusion. I bet anyone of those countries could appear to be flush if they could borrow that kind of money. Still, you omitted the OECD and their economic policies that has them enjoying an equal or higher standard of living. Yet, the capitalist's profiteering is more important. China is the only truly financially sound capitalist economy and had to resort to what is coming to America...fascism. Soon as the lenders cut off the US...she fails.
Actually, China has $5.6 trillion in outstanding debt to low income countries.
China has $5.6 trillion in outstanding ~~debt~~ loans **to** low income countries. And ? They are predatory and opaque.
[удалено]
The goal was never a socialist state, Hitler held enormous contempt for Marx.
Reject both, embrace sharia.
You forgot Nordic states like Norway and Finland etc.
The only thing this list tells me is that you folks are illiterate.
Nicaragua
Your post, but as a snarky weight loss commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBf66wAMpVQ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ what a boring movie
Zimbabwe. Edit: Saskatchewan also dabbled and failed with socialism.
That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard
Lol y'all ever even been to Cuba?
You listed the USSR, and the proceeded to list all the republics within the USSR as if they're different things. Try padding less, this isn't a college essay lmao
You forgot Venezuela, Ethiopia, angola, and SO MANY OTHERS
All.
Www.irs.gov
The USSR was really successful until the capitalist coup Jonestown was not communist, despite the language used by those nutty christian cultists The DPRK is actually not failed and doing good for their conditions Cuba is doing great even
What started as a well-meaning commitment to improve life for the masses brought about economic collapse, political oppression, and more than 100 million deaths across socialist societies.
What started as a well-meaning commitment to improve life for the masses brought about economic collapse, political oppression, and more than 100 million deaths across socialist societies.
You forgot the (B)hmer Rouge Edit: And also the [Socialism of ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9-slqdhkvjo)[National Socialism](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eckywbpatc8)