What is Socialism?

[JimL]

And as a socialist state competing in the capitalist economy, they have the advantage of using what amounts to practically slave labor to maximize profits.

Apple Supplier Workers Describe Noxious Hazards at China Factoryhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rsh-conditions

That is something else I find ironic about you guys who on one hand keep complaining about the poor pay and jobs in capitalist America and wanting more socialism, but when you look at socialist countries, the jobs and job environment is always atrocious and worse than anything in the USA.

Yes, but isn't that the part of it that you republicans like, you know, no government interference, no regulations? We in the U.S. did the same at one time.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, but isn't that the part of it that you republicans like, you know, no government interference, no regulations? We in the U.S. did the same at one time.

I don't know ANY Republicans who want NO regulations. That is a frequently touted lie from the ignorant or dishonest liberals.

[Sparko]

Yes, but isn't that the part of it that you republicans like, you know, no government interference, no regulations? We in the U.S. did the same at one time.

uh no. But I love how you just dodged the point of my post completely.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that communism is a good economic system. What the Chinese did was to combine certain aspects of capitalism along with with socialism. It's called a Social Market Economy. It seems that most of the world has come to understand that neither system is perfect in it's own right.

The Chinese also arrest you for saying anything critical of the government and this is the same government started by Mao, a brutal dictator that murdered millions.

[JimL]

The Chinese also arrest you for saying anything critical of the government and this is the same government started by Mao, a brutal dictator that murdered millions.

Irrelevant to the present discussion, lilpix. We are discussing economic policy.

[Cow Poke]

Irrelevant to the present discussion, lilpix. We are discussing economic policy.

Well, yeah, but the economics ain't so good to those murdered, and their friends and families.

[lilpixieofterror]

Irrelevant to the present discussion, lilpix. We are discussing economic policy.

[Cow Poke]

Don't worry, Pix - Trump will start murdering us at the beginning of the year.

[lilpixieofterror]

Don't worry, Pix - Trump will start murdering us at the beginning of the year.

I thought we were supposed to be dead in 2000 when Bush 2 won.

[Cow Poke]

I thought we were supposed to be dead in 2000 when Bush 2 won.

We are. We're just too dumb to know it. But we'll get dead again when Trump completes his diabolical plan.

[Sparko]

Irrelevant to the present discussion, lilpix. We are discussing economic policy.

I actually laughed out loud at this.

[Sparko]

Right, because the economy is doing great! Who cares if there is nobody to enjoy it accept the leaders? The people live in squalor and are starving, but that doesn't matter! China is BOOMING! Communism for the Win! 111!

Jimmy never thinks before posting and I love that about him. Makes my day entertaining.

[Cow Poke]

I actually laughed out loud at this.

But but but.... he's the brightest bulb in the socket!

[Terraceth]

I get a bit bored of these sort of No True Scotsman excuses from conservatives on this site.

When any country that's even nominally socialist is doing badly, e.g. Venezuela, then the conservatives seem sure that (1) they are definitely and totally socialist, even if no evidence of actual socialism can be provided; and (2) their doing badly is definitely and Totally Due To Their Socialism, even if no evidence of that can be provided.

When any country that's commonly labeled as socialist is doing well, e.g. China, then the conservatives seem sure that (1) they are definitely Not Socialist; and (2) their doing well is Totally Due To Capitalism.

The arguments at that point cease being interesting and just become an exercise in relabeling. This is one of many reasons why Sparko's cartoon is so retarded, as the many varieties of socialism across time and around the world have had many different positive and negative effects, and it's simply false to pretend it has never had good effects or always had bad ones.

I'm not debating on whether China (or for that matter anything else) is socialist or not. Given that there seem to be approximately 10,000 different definitions of socialism, I'm sure it satisfies at least one of those definitions. My contention was about it being communist, particularly given that communism/communist seems to have a much more agreed-upon definition than socialism/socialist does. The claim that China's growth during its "reform era" demonstrates that "Communist countries can be good at economics" or that its economic rise was managed by its "communist government" is problematic because the reform era's titular reforms were the country moving away from communism via a considerable increase in privatization. It was when the country was under actual bona fide communism that it was poverty stricken.

Of course, someone could argue that's correlation, not causation, but that's besides the point. Whether or not the move towards increased privatization was the cause of its economic growth or not doesn't change the fact that the government during the "reform era", by the very nature of its reforms, stopped being communist (even if it still pays lip service to the idea).

[Sparko]