Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

State capitalism can readily fit the definition of what NAZI Germany was.

 

Generalizations, to the point of being meaningless.

 

It's a bit confusing. You loudly and proudly defend socialism and then announce you are not a socialist. Then you try to distinguish different kinds of socialism. Socialism is socialism. Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production and distribution, period. There is no such thing as yellow socialism, purple socialism, singing socialism, or hound dog socialism -- only socialism. You seem to maintain that "democratic socialism" is the good kind versus communist socialism being the bad kind. If democratic socialism means a socialistic country where the people get to vote on things, then all of your bad examples are included. All three hold national elections. It's so confusing. I think you are trying to say that some democratic socialisms end up with terrible despotic leaders, and others with just autocratic leaders who probably jail just as many but don't torture and execute as many. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

Finally, I did not pass your entrance exam for acceptable posts because I did not read every word or watch every second which, as I take it, means I am to stupid to rise to your level of discourse. Well, you cannot stop my post, but you can totally ignore it -- it's your right and fine by me...... no problem.

 

That doesn't mean China does not have a similar system

 

Question: are you avoiding my questions?

 

Voluntarism.

The communists had titanium to sell. We bought it.

They didn't force us to, despite the fact that people were forced to dig it out of the earth, refine it, and prepare it for shipment to us by the communist system.

 

True in that both were/ are tyrannical , authoritarian, controlling non democratic, governments.

 

I'm not sure but I think the Chinese are a bit more tolerant of private ownership than the Nazi's were but then again the Nazis had other bigger, aspirations and concerns at the time. Either way China learned from the years of Mao that central planning doesn't work well economically.

 

I responded to the directly by invalidating them. You're equating capitalism with the system of governance it must operate within.

Not the same thing.

Your questions equate to: is it capitalism if it is regulated? Cars are regulated, are they not cars if the government regulates them? The answer is only up to the point at which it can no longer be used, but that never changes the fact that it's a car.

 

The videos debunk that view, which is the whole point of this thread.

 

Allow Bernie to explain...

 

I think the most successful countries are the ones with the happiest citizens.
I did a bing search, "happiest countries" and found this, but a google search will lead to a different website, with similar conclusions:


The top happiest countries are 'social democracies' which is, in essence, what i am all about, ie., 'socially guided capitalism'.
One could argue they are 'socialistic' but not, technically speaking, socialist, and no progressive I know is arguing for that, (as in authoritarianism)

 

Socialism uses political force to impose an economic system.

So there's that.

 

Happiness. So easy to measure objectively.

 

Or that taxation is "socialism".

 

How is this a meaningful metric?

 

Why don't you read their methodology, from the 'World Happiness Report"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

The rankings of national happiness are based on a Cantril ladder survey. Nationally representative samples of respondents are asked to think of a ladder, with the best possible life for them being a 10, and the worst possible life being a 0. They are then asked to rate their own current lives on that 0 to 10 scale.[12] The report correlates the results with various life factors.[2]

In the reports, experts in fields including economics, psychology, survey analysis, and national statistics, describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations, and other topics. Each report is organized by chapters that delve deeper into issues relating to happiness, including mental illness, the objective benefits of happiness, the importance of ethics, policy implications, and links with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) approach to measuring subjective well-being and other international and national efforts.

However, it must be added, that what makes people happy in Finland might not make people as happy in America, but that is not the point. The salient factor is that the surveys treat all the countries with the same methodology, and even if the results are not perfect, the relativity factor should be rather accurate. America falls far short of the mark, noting that there are, no doubt, external factors beyond the country's economic system that are contributing to such sentiments.

 

How is it not? What is important? If happiness is not important, then what the hell is?

 

I put that question to some students af UCSD ( about half there are from China ) and I asked him 'is China socialist' and the answer I got was 'about half'.
I talked to a businessman who had a manufacturing plant in China, and he told me, "in China, you can go to the government with a business proposition, and if they like it, they will give you the seed money ( probably a loan, not sure ) to get it going. Try that in a America, getting funds form the SBA is not easy.

They are authoritarian, on that question there is no doubt.

 

The wikipedia entry on socialism is 73 pages, so it's not that simple. It's a broad term, which is why I offered the videos, to illuminate the nuances.

 

So I am having qualms about accepting your definition of capitalism being defined solely in terms of trade. The Soviet Union traded with capitalist countries but that trade did not make them capitalists. We traded with the Soviets but that did not make us socialists.

Now you must be talking trade internal to a country as your definition of capitalism.

 

Unregulated, neither has capitalism.

Capitalism run amok is fascism, exactly what we have today.

 

It is the only way they can have a socialist system.

 

As I said, I can't watch internet videos and, if you think a video debunks that, then you have been hoodwinked.