THIS is capitalism

[RGacky3]

TQ92WKDdbuA

She looses her house, her job, all utilities, all healthcare, her kids, lives with cronic pain, is treated like a criminal, so is just basically killed, by Capitalism.

This was a woman that had a job, was productive, paid her bills, took care of her kids, and this is what Capitalism does.

[RGacky3]

What is sad is that this is what socialists SAY would happen in capitalism, in neo-liberalism, and it does happen, yet libertarians somehow believe that dispite all structural incentives, dispite everything, capitalism will work out, it does'nt, it does'nt work out.

[rylasasin]

And the even sadder part is when confronted with this, they just churp "Durrrrr that's not capitalism! That's Corporatism there's a difference gwwwwwaaaccck!"

[RGacky3]

Saying Thats corporatism not capitalism is like saying watching a street fight and saying "thats not a real fight one of the guys did'nt fight clean." No shit, thats what fights lead to, people fighting dirty, corporatism is what happens when capitalism happens.

[Yefim Zverev]

why is the name of this channel or whatever "the young turks" ? who are they ?

[#FF0000]

P. sure the hosts are Turkish/Armenian and the phrase also sort of means 'young rebellious person' or something similar.

and of course a reference to the actual Young Turks i guess.

[Yefim Zverev]

Young turks were a group of people in the history who were inspired by western politics, social sciences in 19th century and begin of 20th century. They introduced nationalism and fascism in the ottoman empire are responsible for creation of turkish republic and caused lots of mayhem. genocides etc in order to change the social structure of remaining ottoman lands.


I dont like wikipedia but easy to find just check if u re interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks

[Goblin]

And they say communism kills... Fuck capitalism!

[DinodudeEpic]

Actually it means 'Progressive person' in this context.

Although, the Young Turks (The Ottoman Faction) weren't exactly fascist, but rather some really odd mixture of liberalism, nationalism, elitism, and monarchism. Something like Enlightened Oligarchism.

[RGacky3]

Im pretty sure the name was just a clever little thing they came up with, because cenk is turkish, and they are progressive ... Don't read too much into it.

[RedAtheist]

She looses her house, her job, all utilities, all healthcare, her kids, lives with cronic pain, is treated like a criminal, so is just basically killed, by Capitalism.

This was a woman that had a job, was productive, paid her bills, took care of her kids, and this is what Capitalism does.

They might blame her for loosing her job, say she didn't work hard enough of whatever or alternatively blame the government. That's what they usually do. It's either the government's fault or people need to take 'personal responsibility'.

[Krano]

Im pretty sure the name was just a clever little thing they came up with, because cenk is turkish, and they are progressive ... Don't read too much into it.
Liberalism progressive? i would say there more centrist if anything.

[Genghis]

this is another failed attempt at socialism:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oejxI2k-whY/TvVDQLwsbPI/AAAAAAAAFOo/8H2qFhzgRGk/s1600/93-Starving-kids-in+North-Korea.jpg

How Kim starved n korea. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/how-kim-jong-il-starved-north-korea/250244/)

[ВАЛТЕР]

And here is another "successful" attempt at Capitalism. Capitalism is so great! Prosperity for all! :rolleyes:

http://formaementis.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/braziliam-slum-in-sao-paulo.jpg

There is nothing socialist about N. Korea. You do realize North Korea is like that because of imperialist powers preventing the North from getting the food they need by sanctioning them...right?

[roy]

this is another failed attempt at socialism:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oejxI2k-whY/TvVDQLwsbPI/AAAAAAAAFOo/8H2qFhzgRGk/s1600/93-Starving-kids-in+North-Korea.jpg

How Kim starved n korea. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/how-kim-jong-il-starved-north-korea/250244/)

If North Korea was even an attempt at socialism it was a poor one. And if your post was an attempt at trolling it was similarly poor.

[Genghis]

And here is another "successful" attempt at Capitalism. Capitalism is so great! Prosperity for all! :rolleyes:

http://formaementis.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/braziliam-slum-in-sao-paulo.jpg

There is nothing socialist about N. Korea. You do realize North Korea is like that because of imperialist powers preventing the North from getting the food they need by sanctioning them...right?

Blaming socialism's failure on America is downright wrong. America has provided food aid to N Korea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17542436) and only suspended food aid a few days ago because of the bad behavior of n korea.

[Genghis]

Also compare socialist n korea and capitalist south korea. The difference is as clear as night and day.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg

N Korea is dark. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm)

[Genghis]

If North Korea was even an attempt at socialism it was a poor one. And if your post was an attempt at trolling it was similarly poor.

N Korea did make an attempt as socialism and it ended in failure - like all other attempts.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Blaming socialism's failure on America is downright wrong. America has provided food aid to N Korea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17542436) and only suspended food aid a few days ago because of the bad behavior of n korea.

"bad behavior" maybe the whole world should cut the US off completely for its "bad behavior" God knows it has done more evil than the North could ever achieve.

The North doesn't need aid. It needs trade. Something that the US and nations influenced by the US don't allow it. All while the US presses the N. militarily. The nation is isolated and thus starved. It is like putting a castle under siege, eventually the population weakens and cannot help but submit. The US is an imperialist, baby murdering, terrorist state. Which has a lot more blood on its hands than any of the nations that they deem as "evil".

Also, this isn't a defense of the North Korean regime, but a defense of its people. Which are held at gun point by imperialism and thus have food shortages. Being that only about 13 percent of their land is actually arable this is in no way a fault of policy, but a fault of isolationism.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Also, that satellite picture you posted is a fake. Just so you know.

[Krano]

Troll detected, let the animal pictures start.

http://localhostr.com/file/KUa2Bxw/Strolling-Bear-1024x768.jpg

[Genghis]

Also, that satellite picture you posted is a fake. Just so you know.

Really? How do you know?

[Genghis]

"bad behavior" maybe the whole world should cut the US off completely for its "bad behavior" God knows it has done more evil than the North could ever achieve.

The North doesn't need aid. It needs trade. Something that the US and nations influenced by the US don't allow it. All while the US presses the N. militarily. The nation is isolated and thus starved. It is like putting a castle under siege, eventually the population weakens and cannot help but submit. The US is an imperialist, baby murdering, terrorist state. Which has a lot more blood on its hands than any of the nations that they deem as "evil".

Also, this isn't a defense of the North Korean regime, but a defense of its people. Which are held at gun point by imperialism and thus have food shortages. Being that only about 13 percent of their land is actually arable this is in no way a fault of policy, but a fault of isolationism.

The US is a great force for good. It helped to defeat Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism and the Soviet Union, the evil empire.

N Korea is starving because its attempt to create socialism failed like all attempts. But they were the worst. Its not sanctions. The US was till recently giving them food.

While Kim was building nukes and a big army, his people starved. Its his fault.

[Prinskaj]

The US is a great force for good. It helped to defeat Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism and the Soviet Union, the evil empire. How are you not restricted?
The United States are not a force of good, they may be the lesser evil, but definitively not good. Have you even taken a casual look at it's history of global imperialism? Supporting military overthrows of democratic governments (Ex. Chile, Congo etc.), invasions of countries that oppose it (Ex. Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.), prioritizing military intervention over diplomatic solutions, (Kosovo and many others).
By supporting the United States in this current way of dealing with foreign affairs, you are directly supporting the largest imperialist power.


N Korea is starving because its attempt to create socialism failed like all attempts. But they were the worst. Its not sanctions. The US was till recently giving them food.
While Kim was building nukes and a big army, his people starved. Its his fault.
First of all, I do not support North Korea's government, which is pretty much solely run by the military, the Kim dynasty is merely a figurehead at this point. And I do not believe, like close to everyone on this forum, that the DPRK is a "socialist". It is the sanctions that are destroying and killing the population, the same happened in Iraq.
And again I have to stress that I do not support the tyrannical regime, but building of a large army and acquiring of nuclear weapons, has been a vital step in the survival of the DPRK.
Ask yourself this, wouldn't the United States have "freed" the people of North Korea by now, if they didn't have nuclear weapons or a large army?

[ВАЛТЕР]

The US is a great force for good. It helped to defeat Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism and the Soviet Union, the evil empire.
.


Go fuck yourself. Seriously. Fuck you and everything you love.

What force for good? What good? How many children were killed by YOUR bombs intentionally. How many Vietnamese villages were napalmed? How many Afghan and Iraqi men, women, and children were murdered (and continue to be murdered) by your troops?

Maybe you come over here and I'll show you the damage done by US cluster bombs on residential areas in 1999? Maybe you tell that to my friends girlfriends sister who has cancer in her twenties because of your uranium bombs. Fuck you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know what to add to the OP. It's fucking horrible. Though not surprising in the least as someone whose partner has a chronic illness and neither of us have insurance. One time my partner was left on a gurney in a hallway for 8 hours - I can only imagine the complications caused daily by the deficiencies both in medical access and insurance as well as just in understaffed and overworked medical facilities.


Young turks were a group of people in the history who were inspired by western politics, social sciences in 19th century and begin of 20th century. They introduced nationalism and fascism in the ottoman empire are responsible for creation of turkish republic and caused lots of mayhem. genocides etc in order to change the social structure of remaining ottoman lands.


I dont like wikipedia but easy to find just check if u re interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks

Yes, this is the origin, but the term is used generally in the US to describe any group of "hot-shot" or maybe reckless reformers coming into an organization. Generally you hear it used in business (probably most of the time it's the company's own PR trying to convince investors that a shake-up will turn the company around, but it's also applied to actual internal battles between an old-guard and new) or in politics.

I'm pretty sure the title is a play on the desire to present themselves as brash young upstarts as opposed to the regular media.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, that satellite picture you posted is a fake. Just so you know.Pretty sure it's real. N. Korea has been in massive economic decline for a while - specifically since the collapse of the USSR.


Blaming socialism's failure on America is downright wrong. America has provided food aid to N Korea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17542436) and only suspended food aid a few days ago because of the bad behavior of n korea.Just like the USSR before. If you look at the recent history of N. Korea it's pretty clear that this country was created as a buffer for cold war powers and so for most of it's history it was in the position of a client of some power. With the collapse of the USSR (and even some years before) N. Korea lost the source of it's subsidies and so since then have used "creating a military threat" as a way to get more subsidies and support from first Russia and then the US.

Revolutionary Socialism or the people of Korea have nothing to do with the situation in N. Korea, the nation historical bastard (or anachronistic remenant) of the Cold War politics. So really the US and Russia are largely responsible for the continued patrician of Korea, the isolation of the North and repressive nature of the South for so long.

At any rate, your argument is a straw-man and only a fraction of socialists even believe that North Korea is anything close to socialism. Their society fits none of the fundamental features of socialism and basically the only thing socialist about them is some inherited cold-war rhetoric and imagery. They also call themselves a Democratic Republic... should we use North Korea as a straw-man against democracy too?

This argument is even more ridiculous since this isn't a discussion about the nature of North Korea, but a discussion about racism, elitism, and health inequality in the US. Bringing up the ... "well sure, but look over here at this!" argument is just a sloppy apology for an obvious crime. A NAZI concentration camp guard could shrug and say, "You think this is horrible, US colonists killed off a continent of native people!" and in a way he'd be correct, but that doesn't negate atrocities elsewhere.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Pretty sure it's real. N. Korea has been in massive economic decline for a while - specifically since the collapse of the USSR.



Hmm, I read somewhere (I think on this forum) that it was a propaganda picture. But that is irrelevant.

N. Korea has little to do with socialism. The Koreans are victims of both their oppressive regime, as well as outside imperialist forces.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hmm, I read somewhere (I think on this forum) that it was a propaganda picture.It could be I really don't know. I also just don't doubt that there has been a large industrial decline so I'm not sure that there would be any real reason to fake the image - and the US seems to always want to present N. Korean images of military parades and so on to justify US saber-rattling. But I wouldn't put it past the US considering all the skewed images we get of other countries and regions in the media and from the government.

But yeah, one way or another, the image itself is not a big issue.

[Revolution starts with U]

Just like a capitalist to let the USSR do all the work (in winning WW2) and yet the US gets to claim all the credit.

[Yefim Zverev]

go go animals xD

http://diamonddusted.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/baby_panda.jpg

[rylasasin]

The US is a great force for good.

Ah the bogus military recruitment line "NAVY/ARMY/MARINES! A GLOBAL FORCE FOR GOOD!"... But for who, exactly?

For the people of the world in general? well, with just a tiny bit of research and with a slight glance at a few of the responses here, it becomes quite plain that it is not. Besides, have you ever talked to anyone from outside of the US? Most of the time they'd be pretty quick to tell you otherwise (why do you think the US is losing its power and credibility in the world stage to china, eh?)

.... For the investors of the US? The Military Industrial complex? Pretty much. But if that's all it's good for, that's hardly something to be proud of.


It helped to defeat Nazism,

Actually the US's role in the European front was relatively small all things considered. They joined in late in the war, and beforehand a lot of American companies were actually supporting the hitler regime untill Japan bombed their harbor. Some didn't even stop! Ford and the Bush family are prime examples of this.


Japanese imperialism

... Only to take its place almost immediately after the war. "Force for good" indeed.


and the Soviet Union, the evil empire.

Evil empire huh? Clearly you're getting your info from a non-biased source. That... wouldn't happen to be the black book of communism by any chance? :rolleyes:

Truthfully, there's a lot of debate on what actually caused the collapse of the soviet union. Marxist-Leninists say it was traitors from the inside, Trots say it was lack of internationalism and/or stalin's fuckups, others say it was material conditions/lack of proletariats for a successful proletarian revolution and was really doomed from the start, etc.

Either way, we seem to pretty much all agree that wither it was socialist or not at one time, none of us here would have supported the soviet union after 1960 at the very latest.

If you somehow think you're going to "beat" or "pwn" us by posting tired and tried reactionary talking points, strawmen about the DPRK/soviet union, or nationalistic propaganda, then just forget it. It's the same garbage that's posted by just about every single one of the hundreds of trolls that's come and gone from these forums.



... and now that i've said my two cents i'm just gonna go back to lurking now.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think the US Navy even tries to hide their agenda in those commercials. Ya it says "for good," but it's clear they mean that in the "forever" sense, not in the "for good things to happen." They even say "until people no longer must live in fear of natural disasters."

Clearly the US Navy thinks the US is on the verge of a 1000 year empire.

[Rafiq]

"corporatism" doesn't exist.

[Rafiq]

this is another failed attempt at socialism:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oejxI2k-whY/TvVDQLwsbPI/AAAAAAAAFOo/8H2qFhzgRGk/s1600/93-Starving-kids-in+North-Korea.jpg

How Kim starved n korea. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/how-kim-jong-il-starved-north-korea/250244/)

The difference is, though, that the United States does not have an excuse for such terrible living conditions, it's the world's largest superpower and most powerful Imperialist force in the world.

Norht Korea, on the other hand, is an isolated, tiny strip of land that is constantly under siege from Imperialist powers. And for what it's worth, North Korea operates within the capitalist mode of production (And NOT because Hur dur the state is capitalist, it's just more complex than that, the state serves to manage capital, and profit doesn't just "Go on their pockets" but none the less the cycle exists).

It's a third world country. West Germany and South Korea would be a billion times worse if they didn't receive massive amounts of "Aid" from NATO.

[Rafiq]

Blaming socialism's failure on America is downright wrong. America has provided food aid to N Korea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17542436) and only suspended food aid a few days ago because of the bad behavior of n korea.

That still doesn't address the fact that North Korea is a tiny isolated nation which is, yes, constantly under siege by the United States (And sending in aid is only to rally support from the masses).

Sorry, but countries like Somalia, Uganda, Cambodia make North Korea look like a paradise, and they aren't isolated or constantly under siege. South Korea only achieved such economic advancement due to the pouring in of money from the west.

Once North Korea is gone, the U.S. will leave both countries to rot into shit.

[Rafiq]

N Korea did make an attempt as socialism and it ended in failure - like all other attempts.

We agree, yet, we disagree on why they failed.

Here's a trivia: what did, economically, all of the countries that engaged in "Socialism" have in common that Marx pointed out would be antithetical to the survival of socialism? And this is before.


Only one of them engaged in a proletarian revolution, which didn't spread to industrialized countries, resulting in several similar instances minus the actual proletarian revolution.

[Rafiq]

The US is a great force for good. It helped to defeat Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism and the Soviet Union, the evil empire.

For what it's worth the United States barely defeated Fascism. And, if wouldn't have defeated Japan if not for help from the Soviet Union.

So that just leaves us with the Soviet Union itself, which, by the way, didn't collapse because "Amuricah", it collapse because of systematic inefficiency which has been piling up since the 1960's.

A "Force for good" doesn't exist. The United States will invade and destroy when it suits them, just like any other super power. They will support the Mujahadin when they need htem and dump them later. They will support the worst of African war lords when it suits them and attack them when it suits them. Do you need historical examples, Genghis?

You're head is in your ass, is all.



While Kim was building nukes and a big army, his people starved. Its his fault.



It isn't "His fault", it isn't anyone's fault. It's the fault of global capitalism which forced him to raise such an Army to prevent siege.

[danyboy27]

The US is a great force for good. It helped to defeat Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism and the Soviet Union, the evil empire.

By causing a devastating trail of disaster and mayhem in his path. I dont think the hundred of thousand of people who where burned alive and left to their own devices in Tokyo and dresden really deserved to be butchered in that manner. For the sake of tactical and strategic consideration the U.S and its allies didnt even stopped the holocaust, even when they where fully aware that millions of people where sent to their death.
i am not even gonna stretch the discussion to the countless times where the U.S supplied dictators and other ruthless bastard, the blood trail associated to that country is just so endless, it would take decade to put everything together in a 10 volume format.



N Korea is starving because its attempt to create socialism failed like all attempts. But they were the worst. Its not sanctions. The US was till recently giving them food.

North korea is starving beccause after the cold war the warsaw pact stopped making buisness with them, wich cut pretty much all the economic they had with the outside world. Any country has isolated has north korea would eventually starve, even cuba got more outside commercial relation than NK.



While Kim was building nukes and a big army, his people starved. Its his fault.
Beside a fews fanatics nobody is gonna argues with that.
But still, they are starving mainly beccause there the sanction and the lack of fair trade with the exterior world. CHina does not count has fair trade, those folks have been recently setting ''free economic zone'' within north korea to evade Chinese labor regulation, more specifically the 50 hours workweek limit.

[Genghis]

The difference is, though, that the United States does not have an excuse for such terrible living conditions, it's the world's largest superpower and most powerful Imperialist force in the world.

Norht Korea, on the other hand, is an isolated, tiny strip of land that is constantly under siege from Imperialist powers. And for what it's worth, North Korea operates within the capitalist mode of production (And NOT because Hur dur the state is capitalist, it's just more complex than that, the state serves to manage capital, and profit doesn't just "Go on their pockets" but none the less the cycle exists).

It's a third world country. West Germany and South Korea would be a billion times worse if they didn't receive massive amounts of "Aid" from NATO.

N Korea has borders with China and Russia. See map:

http://geology.com/world/north-korea-map.gif

So N Korea is not isolated. They can, if they choose, send aid to them. Yet the N Korean economy failed.

Why? It failed because any attempt to achieve Socialism fails.

[Genghis]

We agree, yet, we disagree on why they failed.

Here's a trivia: what did, economically, all of the countries that engaged in "Socialism" have in common that Marx pointed out would be antithetical to the survival of socialism? And this is before.


Only one of them engaged in a proletarian revolution, which didn't spread to industrialized countries, resulting in several similar instances minus the actual proletarian revolution.

I don't know the answer. Please educate me.

[Genghis]

Go fuck yourself. Seriously. Fuck you and everything you love.

What force for good? What good? How many children were killed by YOUR bombs intentionally. How many Vietnamese villages were napalmed? How many Afghan and Iraqi men, women, and children were murdered (and continue to be murdered) by your troops?

Maybe you come over here and I'll show you the damage done by US cluster bombs on residential areas in 1999? Maybe you tell that to my friends girlfriends sister who has cancer in her twenties because of your uranium bombs. Fuck you.

They were trying to save South Vietnam from going communist. Communism caused 100 million deaths according to the black book of communism.

[Revolutionair]

Chomsky made a good point about the Black Book of Communism.


Critics have argued that capitalist countries could be held responsible for a similar number of deaths. Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), for example, writes that Amartya Sen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen) in the early 1980s estimated the excess of mortality in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of medical resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky therefore argues that, "suppos[ing] we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of... Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone.

[Genghis]

Ah the bogus military recruitment line "NAVY/ARMY/MARINES! A GLOBAL FORCE FOR GOOD!"... But for who, exactly?

For the people of the world in general?

Yes. I think so. I can't think of a war since WWII that I would rather America's enemies win.

1)Do you want Hitler to win?
2)Hirohitho?
3)Kim Il Sung?
3)Ho Chi Min?
4)Osama bin Laden/Mullah Omar?
5)Saddam Hussein?






Actually the US's role in the European front was relatively small all things considered. They joined in late in the war, and beforehand a lot of American companies were actually supporting the hitler regime untill Japan bombed their harbor. Some didn't even stop! Ford and the Bush family are prime examples of this.

I think without US help, Hitler might have won. Even before it entered the war, the US and the UK were helping Russia with supplies (http://www.historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm) without which Hitler would have defeated Stalin.

Excerpt from link:


The victory over Nazi Germany was achieved through the economic power of the United States and the lives of millions of Soviets, who for reasons that defy logic made the ultimate sacrifice to keep in power a regime as brutal as their Nazi enemy.








Evil empire huh? Clearly you're getting your info from a non-biased source. That... wouldn't happen to be the black book of communism by any chance? :rolleyes:

I see you like the Soviet Union, despite it being a brutal dictatorship. I am surprised because most people here I talk to say that the USSR was not a true Socialist state. If its not, then you would not be offended my calling it an evil empire.



Either way, we seem to pretty much all agree that wither it was socialist or not at one time, none of us here would have supported the soviet union after 1960 at the very latest.


Exactly. So why are you defending the SU?

[Revolutionair]

Let's make a list of people who worked for US corporate interests, or who offered their services to US corporate interests:

1)Hitler
3)Ho Chi Min
4)Osama bin Laden
5)Saddam Hussein

Interesting list you got there.

[L.A.P.]

They were trying to save South Vietnam from going communist. Communism caused 100 million deaths according to the black book of communism.

I hope you realize that when the Communist Party of China, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Democratic People's Repiblic of Korea (also note that Kim Jong-il removed all references to socialism and Marxism-Leninism from the North Korean constitution) attach those words to the name of their institutions that they're just words. It has nothing to do with the actual material structural relations in those states which is what determines whether a place is capitalist, socialist, feudal, etc. It just goes to show how much the Symbolic realm really does dominate people's social "realities". (Lacanian reference)

[Genghis]

Chomsky made a good point about the Black Book of Communism.


Critics have argued that capitalist countries could be held responsible for a similar number of deaths. Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), for example, writes that Amartya Sen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen) in the early 1980s estimated the excess of mortality in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of medical resources" at close to 4 million a year.



Chomsky's comment is too far a stretch. The famine in Ukraine and China was due to Socialist collectivisation policies while the Indian mortality is the result of dozens of factors including diet and hygiene habits.

Do you know that India has the highest number of public defecators (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aErNiP_V4RLc&pid=newsarchive) in the world? This results in the spread of germs. It is acceptable in their culture.

If you take a train ride, the train will stop for a toilet stop. People of both sexes will get off both sides of the train and shit.

Excerpts from link:


With that act, she added to the estimated 100,000 tons of human excrement (http://www.ddws.gov.in/handwash/Media%20Kit/Final%20IYS%20Advocacy%20Kit%20.doc) that Indians leave each day in fields of potatoes, carrots and spinach, on banks that line rivers used for drinking and bathing and along roads jammed with scooters, trucks and pedestrians.



From the stream in Devi’s village to the nation’s holiest river, the Ganges, 75 percent of the country’s surface water (http://www.indiawaterportal.org/) is contaminated by human and agricultural waste and industrial effluent. Everyone in Indian cities is at risk of consuming human feces, if they’re not already, the Ministry of Urban Development (http://urbanindia.nic.in/) concluded in September.



Some 665 million Indians practice open defecation (http://www.wssinfo.org/en/40_MDG2008.html), more than half the global total. In China, the world’s most populous country, 37 million people defecate in the open, according to Unicef.

There you go. The Chinese are more hygenic.

[Genghis]

I hope you realize that when the Communist Party of China, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Democratic People's Repiblic of Korea (also note that Kim Jong-il removed all references to socialism and Marxism-Leninism from the North Korean constitution) attach those words to the name of their institutions that they're just words. It has nothing to do with the actual material structural relations in those states which is what determines whether a place is capitalist, socialist, feudal, etc. It just goes to show how much the Symbolic realm really does dominate people's social "realities". (Lacanian reference)

Yes, I am aware that most leftists do not regard China, Vietnam, N Korea etc as true Socialist states. That's because none of them match the idealized version of Socialism you all imagine to be possible.

But it can be fairly said that they were attempts at Socialism and they all failed. Could it be that Socialism simply does not work and all attempts are doomed to fail and degenerate into brutal dictatorships?

[NGNM85]

Yes, I am aware that most leftists do not regard China, Vietnam, N Korea etc as true Socialist states. That's because none of them match the idealized version of Socialism you all imagine to be possible.

But it can be fairly said that they were attempts at Socialism and they all failed. Could it be that Socialism simply does not work and all attempts are doomed to fail and degenerate into brutal dictatorships?

First; you're making the fatal mistake of treating the spectrum of Socialist thought as if it was one homogenous entity, when it is, in fact, a broad and diverse tradition, with many offshoots, with significant differences of opinion on matters of philosophy, and tactics.

Second; of, what I would argue, are the truest, or purest examples of Socialism, or the closest thing to it; (Much more so than the aforementioned motley collection of police states.) the Anarchist provinces of Revolutionary Spain, the Ukrainian Makhnovschina, the Israeli Kibbutzim, the Mexican Zapatistas, and Denmark's Free Christiania, none of them degenerated into despotism.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Communism caused 100 million deaths according to the black book of communism.


You just lost all credibility by getting your sources from that book that has been proven time and time again as a nothing but bunch of nonsense.

[Revolutionair]

Chomsky's comment is too far a stretch. The famine in Ukraine and China was due to Socialist collectivisation policies while the Indian mortality is the result of dozens of factors including diet and hygiene habits.

Could you prove this?


There you go. The Chinese are more hygenic.

I don't think that's a good argument considering that the issue is excess mortality, not mortality. I am assuming that excess mortality is already adjusted for hygine.

[Conscript]

First; you're making the fatal mistake of treating the spectrum of Socialist thought as if it was one homogenous entity, when it is, in fact, a broad and diverse tradition, with many offshoots, with significant differences of opinion on matters of philosophy, and tactics.

Second; of, what I would argue, are the truest, or purest examples of Socialism, or the closest thing to it; (Much more so than the aforementioned motley collection of police states.) the Anarchist provinces of Revolutionary Spain, the Ukrainian Makhnovschina, the Israeli Kibbutzim, the Mexican Zapatistas, and Denmark's Free Christiania, none of them degenerated into despotism.

The paris commune outpaced all of these. Why isn't it mentioned?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes. I think so. I can't think of a war since WWII that I would rather America's enemies win.

1)Do you want Hitler to win?
2)Hirohitho?
3)Kim Il Sung?
3)Ho Chi Min?
4)Osama bin Laden/Mullah Omar?
5)Saddam Hussein?
This is the wrong way to look at these kinds of wars. I mean thank got the UK beat Germany in WWI and saved democracy from German militarism... and that 20% of the European male population. At least save the world for a decade and a half until their conditions for peace led to WWII.

When someone says something like "America won" what they really are saying is that our ruling class won. America can still "win" and yet there is no difference, or a negative consequence even for the people they have "liberated". The US won, but bombed working class neighborhoods rather than train tracks to concentration camps. They liberated Germany from the NAZIs and then gave the NAZIs their old positions back aside from some big-wigs. The US defeated Japan and in Vietnam where the rebels defeated the Japanese and the French who collaborated with them, the US put the French back in power leading to two decades of war. While talking about fighting for Democracy in Europe, the allies supported the British re-instating the Greek monarchy. In fact the allies callously carved up the world amongst themselves and that post-war arrangement lead to conflicts ever since in the middle east and asia specifically - not to mention a cold war almost resulting in the destruction of modern society through nuclear exchange.

Victory for our rulers is not the same as victory for the people. Rulers always appeal to "good ideals" to convince people that the "enemy" is so much worse for all of us. It's never really the case. The opposing side might be worse, but that doesn't mean that Stalin's or the US's imperialism is actually good or a benefit for anyone.


Why? It failed because any attempt to achieve Socialism fails.It failed because it never set out to achieve socialism. Even if you believe that N. Korea is some kind of socialist country (few do) it would still be one of economic reforms from the top of society over the working class, not the self-emancipation of the working class like revolutionary marxists and anarchists have always organized towards.

It failed because it was created as a cold war client state and was dependent on the USSR for it's industrial development. When the larger imperialist picture changed in the late 80s, the economic rug was pulled out from under the country and they have resorted to essentially blackmailing Russia and the US alternately to get aid. Cuba also had a huge economic problem when the USSR collapsed, but since the USSR actually wanted Cuba for trade, there were some marketable resources and Cuba was able to combine internal economic restructuring and cash crops to Europe and Latin America to recover some of it's economy (still not socialist in my view, still a top-down national economy, not worker's power). North Korea doesn't really have that, all they had to offer the big imperialist countries is a strategic location in an important region. Since they don't have anything they can really trade, they use the only leverage they have: if they are a game-piece in the imperial balance, they can threaten destabilization for the region and get paid off to not disrupt the status quo.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Also compare socialist n korea and capitalist south korea. The difference is as clear as night and day.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg

N Korea is dark. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm)

We went over this, like a million times...
North Korea is an extremely fertile area of rocky mountains, and certainly doesn't have the biggest blockade in world history or anything..:rolleyes:

Seriously, know before you go.

And I like to think of the starving kids in Africa as better, which is a lot less widespread.

[Conscript]

South korea's advances are a recent development that came around as a result of state planning. Not a good liberal reference.

[Ocean Seal]

this is another failed attempt at socialism
How Kim starved n korea. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/how-kim-jong-il-starved-north-korea/250244/)
Believing that one man can starve a whole nation :D.
And believing that it is okay to apply sanctions and starve a nation because of "bad behavior"

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUIG95LPVQ4CZkRRJUQ41kd7m8Lciwe 8FKGCUaxwqYHq37Bk9AptQ2f05A

[Deicide]

Yes, I am aware that most leftists do not regard China, Vietnam, N Korea etc as true Socialist states. That's because none of them match the idealized version of Socialism you all imagine to be possible.

But it can be fairly said that they were attempts at Socialism and they all failed. Could it be that Socialism simply does not work and all attempts are doomed to fail and degenerate into brutal dictatorships?

Bringing your nonsensical reasoning to its natural conclusion: North Korea is a democracy. DPRK = Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It says ''democratic'' in the name. So it's settled, North Korea is democratic.

Seriously though, delete this guy of the forum. It's quite clear he has never looked at anything beyond the superficial, moralist level that is taught in high school. The guy is essentially saying linguistics defines the materialist structure of societies. From what I've seen (and I've seen enough) he completely disregards materialist analysis and reduces everything to moralism and internet-psychobable. The USSR had socialism in its name!!!! That means it was socialist!!! If I want to listen to right-wing neanderthals, I'll watch Glenn Beck. Albeit.. It's like this guy came out Glenn Beck's uterus.

Would you agree with the statement, ''Obama is a Socialist''?

[#FF0000]

But it can be fairly said that they were attempts at Socialism and they all failed. Could it be that Socialism simply does not work and all attempts are doomed to fail and degenerate into brutal dictatorships?

yo it could be, but you've never, even once, actually presented a coherent argument to that effect. All you've done is say "no it failed because socialism always fails" without ever going into any detail whatsoever with actual history or anything.

I mean I just don't get it. Even on subjects I'm knowledgeable about, I'm wary to come to definite conclusions. How are you able to make claims with such a shallow analysis? Knowing almost nothing of the historical details, of the hows and whys?

[NGNM85]

The paris commune outpaced all of these. Why isn't it mentioned?

Well, there's a degree of subjectivity, there. I also could have mentioned the New Jersey Ferrer colony, or the Love & Rage Federation, etc. I chose the aforementioned examples because they were of a larger scale, and, because I figured I'd sufficiently made my point.

[¿Que?]

There you go. The Chinese are more hygenic.
Maybe you believe the famine in China was avoidable if collective farming wasn't instituted. I think that's a fair assumption, although, much like your capitalist apologist answer, this could be due to "dozens of factors" not limited to the policies themselves, for example, the fact that many of the farms were reporting higher yields than they were producing. This is a problem of implementation not policy in and of itself.

And while we're on the subject of policy, why let the indian government off the hook so easily. Why no extensive public policy for health education, if hygiene habits proved to be so deadly for India's citizens. Or could it be that such policies existed, but they were complete failures. Either way, as negligence or as failure, your argument falls short.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

So US embargo starving children is the fault of socialism?

[Genghis]

First; you're making the fatal mistake of treating the spectrum of Socialist thought as if it was one homogenous entity, when it is, in fact, a broad and diverse tradition, with many offshoots, with significant differences of opinion on matters of philosophy, and tactics.

True. There are many varieties. I regard Fascism as a variant of Socialism. All failed and degenerated into brutal dictatorships.



Second; of, what I would argue, are the truest, or purest examples of Socialism, or the closest thing to it; (Much more so than the aforementioned motley collection of police states.) the Anarchist provinces of Revolutionary Spain, the Ukrainian Makhnovschina, the Israeli Kibbutzim, the Mexican Zapatistas, and Denmark's Free Christiania, none of them degenerated into despotism.


The only one that I have some passing knowledge are the Israeli kibbutzim. They failed too but did not degenerate into dictatorship because they were not a country.

I can't comment on the rest. They are so obscure that they made no impact on the rest of the world.

[Genghis]

You just lost all credibility by getting your sources from that book that has been proven time and time again as a nothing but bunch of nonsense.

I think the book is generally accurate. The fact that you can't face the truth makes you lose all credibility.

[Genghis]

We went over this, like a million times...
North Korea is an extremely fertile area of rocky mountains, and certainly doesn't have the biggest blockade in world history or anything..:rolleyes:

Seriously, know before you go.

And I like to think of the starving kids in Africa as better, which is a lot less widespread.

America has been sending food to North Korea till a few weeks ago (http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_stop-missile-tests-or-we-will-end-food-aid-obama-tells-north-korea_1667476). Know your facts.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think the book is generally accurate. The fact that you can't face the truth makes you lose all credibility.

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is facts and history. The book is nothing but lying cold war propaganda.

[#FF0000]

I regard Fascism as a variant of Socialism.

I'm sorry this is objectively false.

[Rafiq]

N Korea has borders with China and Russia. See map:

http://geology.com/world/north-korea-map.gif

So N Korea is not isolated. They can, if they choose, send aid to them. Yet the N Korean economy failed.

Why? It failed because any attempt to achieve Socialism fails.

China and Russia don't give a fuck about the N korean economy.

Yes, it is fucking isolated. Last time I checked Russia and China don't call themselves Socialist and have no interest in doing anything but intergrating (pressuring) North Korea into the world economy through heavy capitalist reforms. What makes them different from the U.S?

[Rafiq]

Chomsky's comment is too far a stretch. The famine in Ukraine and China was due to Socialist collectivisation policies while the Indian mortality is the result of dozens of factors including diet and hygiene habits.

Do you know that India has the highest number of public defecators (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aErNiP_V4RLc&pid=newsarchive) in the world? This results in the spread of germs. It is acceptable in their culture.

If you take a train ride, the train will stop for a toilet stop. People of both sexes will get off both sides of the train and shit.

Excerpts from link:







There you go. The Chinese are more hygenic.

So when it's India, it's just factors external from your perfect capitalism. You like to be a materialist and a hegelian totalist on Socialist countries, but when it comes Congo or India you claim it has nothing to do with class relations or the mode of production.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

True. There are many varieties. I regard Fascism as a variant of Socialism. All failed and degenerated into brutal dictatorships.



The only one that I have some passing knowledge are the Israeli kibbutzim. They failed too but did not degenerate into dictatorship because they were not a country.

I can't comment on the rest. They are so obscure that they made no impact on the rest of the world.

So because you don't know about something it automatically doesn't make an impact on the world? Talk about ignorance and arrogance!

EDIT: Those societies obviously made a big impact on the leftists on this site and other leftists not on this site.

[Rafiq]

Saying North Korea isn't socialist, and saying you don't identify with 20th century communism is useless.. We are asking why socialism failed, not whether it is socialism or not.

If you want to attribute socialism for the failure of North Korea, you must do so for every failed capitalist state.

You blame behavioral patterns for famine in India, but why wasm't capitalism efficient enough to avoid these patterns? What is the ROOT cause of these so called external factors?

Or so we must admit: North Korea never had a proletarian revolution, and what we call Feudal Siege socialism is a thousand times worse than the capitalism of an Industrialized Imperialist power. But it is those prescise powers that assure North Korea remains a Feudal Siege Socialist state.

[Genghis]

Could you prove this?



I don't think that's a good argument considering that the issue is excess mortality, not mortality. I am assuming that excess mortality is already adjusted for hygine.

No, it was not adjusted for hygiene. Relatively poorer Indian hygiene standards contributed to a higher mortality rate.

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Genghis
Yes. I think so. I can't think of a war since WWII that I would rather America's enemies win.

1)Do you want Hitler to win?
2)Hirohitho?
3)Kim Il Sung?
3)Ho Chi Min?
4)Osama bin Laden/Mullah Omar?
5)Saddam Hussein?


This is the wrong way to look at these kinds of wars. I mean thank got the UK beat Germany in WWI and saved democracy from German militarism... and that 20% of the European male population. At least save the world for a decade and a half until their conditions for peace led to WWII.

When someone says something like "America won" what they really are saying is that our ruling class won. America can still "win" and yet there is no difference, or a negative consequence even for the people they have "liberated". The US won, but bombed working class neighborhoods rather than train tracks to concentration camps. They liberated Germany from the NAZIs and then gave the NAZIs their old positions back aside from some big-wigs. The US defeated Japan and in Vietnam where the rebels defeated the Japanese and the French who collaborated with them, the US put the French back in power leading to two decades of war. While talking about fighting for Democracy in Europe, the allies supported the British re-instating the Greek monarchy. In fact the allies callously carved up the world amongst themselves and that post-war arrangement lead to conflicts ever since in the middle east and asia specifically - not to mention a cold war almost resulting in the destruction of modern society through nuclear exchange.

Victory for our rulers is not the same as victory for the people. Rulers always appeal to "good ideals" to convince people that the "enemy" is so much worse for all of us. It's never really the case. The opposing side might be worse, but that doesn't mean that Stalin's or the US's imperialism is actually good or a benefit for anyone.

It failed because it never set out to achieve socialism. Even if you believe that N. Korea is some kind of socialist country (few do) it would still be one of economic reforms from the top of society over the working class, not the self-emancipation of the working class like revolutionary marxists and anarchists have always organized towards.

It failed because it was created as a cold war client state and was dependent on the USSR for it's industrial development. When the larger imperialist picture changed in the late 80s, the economic rug was pulled out from under the country and they have resorted to essentially blackmailing Russia and the US alternately to get aid. Cuba also had a huge economic problem when the USSR collapsed, but since the USSR actually wanted Cuba for trade, there were some marketable resources and Cuba was able to combine internal economic restructuring and cash crops to Europe and Latin America to recover some of it's economy (still not socialist in my view, still a top-down national economy, not worker's power). North Korea doesn't really have that, all they had to offer the big imperialist countries is a strategic location in an important region. Since they don't have anything they can really trade, they use the only leverage they have: if they are a game-piece in the imperial balance, they can threaten destabilization for the region and get paid off to not disrupt the status quo.

In this world, nobody is perfect. In a conflict we simply want the less imperfect side to win. Everyone of the wars America participated in had an enemy that was worse than America. Hilter, Hirohitho, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Min and his allies the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar/Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein again were all worse than America. So I am on the side of America in all these wars.

That is why I said that America is a force for good. It should also be remembered that in fighting its wars, America allied itself with a lot of unsavory and even evil characters - Stalin, the kings of the Gulf states and other dictators.

Your idea of a ruling class controlling America is false. This may have been true of europeans society in the 19th century when Marx was alive. But things have changed. America is a democracy where people can choose their leaders

[Genghis]

By the way, someone said that I did not reply to his post about the Israeli kibbutzim. I can't find the post now. Can he or someone point it to me?

[Revolution starts with U]

America is a democracy where people can choose their leaders

How do you explain people with 30% approval rates at best actually winning elections?

[Genghis]

Saying North Korea isn't socialist, and saying you don't identify with 20th century communism is useless.. We are asking why socialism failed, not whether it is socialism or not.

If you want to attribute socialism for the failure of North Korea, you must do so for every failed capitalist state.

You blame behavioral patterns for famine in India, but why wasm't capitalism efficient enough to avoid these patterns? What is the ROOT cause of these so called external factors?

Or so we must admit: North Korea never had a proletarian revolution, and what we call Feudal Siege socialism is a thousand times worse than the capitalism of an Industrialized Imperialist power. But it is those prescise powers that assure North Korea remains a Feudal Siege Socialist state.

India was partially Socialist for a long time. You see nobody in this world is fully capitalist or fully socialist. All have mixed economies. Its a matter of degree. When India gain Independence from the British, it was led by Nehru, a Fabian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society)Socialist. He managed his economy on Socialist lines:



It was at this time that many of the future leaders of the Third World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World) were exposed to Fabian thought, most notably India's Jawaharlal Nehru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru), who subsequently framed economic policy for India on Fabian social-democratic lines.


The Socialist movement split along two lines - the revolutionary Marxist Leninist line and the Democratic Socialist line.

Marx's disciple, Eduard Bernstein was the spiritual father of the latter line. They believed that there is no need for a violent revolution. Their objectives can be reached through the democratic system bit by bit.

The present day democratic socialist or social democratic parties in Europe and the Democratic Party are the spiritual descendents of Bernstein.

Nehru and most Independence leaders of that era were Socialists - by their definition. So India's economy was stifled by too much central planning and redistributive policies.

A handful of countries bucked the trend after Independence - the Asian tigers of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. They adopted a much larger element of free market capitalism. After their success, others took the capitalist path, including Deng Xiao Ping.

[Revolution starts with U]

:closedeyes:A mixed economy is market socialism. Capitalism with government is capitalism.

I guess a positive of rightists definition of "anybody who self identifies as socialist is socialist" is that we don't have to own up at all to n Korea... lulz. Its such a bogus definition tho because it asserts capitalism never existed. And it leads to the kind of ignorance I began this post talking about. Brosephus; capitalism is not the natural order and socialism isn't some ideal for which to strive. The natural order is that capitalism will either collapse to barbarism or be overtaken by working class rule. It relies upon the illusion of democracy yet is diametrically opposed to it in truth. As such it is unsustainable.

The question is not Soc or cap. Its really just whether youre ready for the future.

[Genghis]

How do you explain people with 30% approval rates at best actually winning elections?

30% won't win elections, I can assure you. I think what you mean are the election participation rates which can be low. In the US, a lot of people don't bother voting.

This is true even for Presidential elections which has a higher participation rate of about 60%. It still means that 40% did not vote.

Turnout rate US elections (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html)

But that's not the fault of the system. If people don't want to vote, there is nothing you can do or should do. Some countries have made it compulsory but I don't agree with that.

[Genghis]

:closedeyes:A mixed economy is market socialism. Capitalism with government is capitalism.

It's a question of semantics. Let's be practical. Most people here have a definition of Socialism that is impossible in practice. Name me one country that matches your definition of socialism.

The reality is that most economies today are mixed.

[Revolution starts with U]

30% won't win elections, I can assure you. I think what you mean are the election participation rates which can be low. In the US, a lot of people don't bother voting.

This is true even for Presidential elections which has a higher participation rate of about 60%. It still means that 40% did not vote.

Turnout rate US elections (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html)

But that's not the fault of the system. If people don't want to vote, there is nothing you can do or should do. Some countries have made it compulsory but I don't agree with that.

Right. So why does 40% of the country "choose" ( felons?) Not to vote? And who are these 40%?

[Revolution starts with U]

It's a question of semantics. Let's be practical. Most people here have a definition of Socialism that is impossible in practice. Name me one country that matches your definition of socialism.

The reality is that most economies today are mixed.

How are they mixed.

(+ no country CAN match my definition of socialism because its more than just a political position I advocate. Its a scientific assertion based on verifiable observation)

[Rafiq]

India was partially Socialist for a long time. You see nobody in this world is fully capitalist or fully socialist. All have mixed economies. Its a matter of degree. When India gain Independence from the British, it was led by Nehru, a Fabian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society)Socialist. He managed his economy on Socialist lines:

Show me where the Indian state has called itself Socialist. And you're wrong, you're either within the capitalist mode of production or something else. You cannot "Mix" Socialism with Capitalism, because:

1. Socialism isn't a system or a blueprint

2. The capitalist mode of production can persist even if the "Government" owns everything. So long as capitalist relations and the existence of capital exist, so does capitalism.




The Socialist movement split along two lines - the revolutionary Marxist Leninist line and the Democratic Socialist line.


Wrong again. The Socialist movement split between Marxists and Anarchists, and deviations went on from there. As for "Democratic Socialism", it's just Liberalist-Reformism that has nothing to do with the emancipation of the proletarian class.



Marx's disciple, Eduard Bernstein was the spiritual father of the latter line. They believed that there is no need for a violent revolution. Their objectives can be reached through the democratic system bit by bit.


Are you talking out of your ass, or what? Bernstein wasn't a democratic socialist, whether he be a reformist or not.



The present day democratic socialist or social democratic parties in Europe and the Democratic Party are the spiritual descendents of Bernstein.


There aren't any descendents of Bernstein, as social democratic parties

1. Don't call for the dismantlement of the capitalist system

2. Are not Marxists by any means.

Bernstein did call for the dismantlement of hte capitalist system, via "Evoluitonary Socialism".



Nehru and most Independence leaders of that era were Socialists - by their definition. So India's economy was stifled by too much central planning and redistributive policies.


India didn't have a centrally planned economy, it had a full blown Market Economy. I for one, don't care about calling the DPRK or any other red flag state "Socialist", because that's their ideological rhetoric, though, India doesn't fall into this definition. I love how right wingers just call fuck all things socialist, "Europe is Socialist", "India is Socialist", blah blah blah. Just shut the fuck up, it's common knowledge those countries aren't "Socialist".


A handful of countries bucked the trend after Independence - the Asian tigers of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. They adopted a much larger element of free market capitalism. After their success, others took the capitalist path, including Deng Xiao Ping.


The success of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea would not have existed if not from foreign investments. Those countries were, by no means, "Free Market Capitalist". More central planning took place in those countries than in India, btw. In Hong Kong, the state owns all of the land. Stop with the bull shit.

Deng Xiao Ping took an already capitalist country and unleashed the chains of capital and the market economy, which resulted in large "success", because:

1. China was no longer isolated from the rest of the world.

2. If you're within the capitalist mode of production, than "Socialism" is shit. Within the capitalist mode of production, it is innefficient for the state to own everything.

Also, China is far from a free market economy. It is largely centrally planned, and resembles Fascism, economically, at best. And not because "Hur durr capitalism without freeedum and democrazzzyyyyyy", because, if you actually read Fascist theory, China fits very well, economically.

[arilando]

TQ92WKDdbuA

She looses her house, her job, all utilities, all healthcare, her kids, lives with cronic pain, is treated like a criminal, so is just basically killed, by Capitalism.

This was a woman that had a job, was productive, paid her bills, took care of her kids, and this is what Capitalism does.
I hate moralist and emotional arguments against capitalism.

[Revolutionair]

Then what is the basis for your argument? In the end, as a socialist, you must at some point show that something about capitalism is morally undesireable.

[RGacky3]

Its not a moralist argument, it shows what capitalism leads too, then you basically think, is this something I want in a society ...

Its not even an argument.