Actually, it appears that your methodology is to twist interpretation, deny evidence, and distort figures, but that’s ok. That’s a pretty typically Communist thing to do, if history is any evidence.
I did not state that Socialist nations are poor, and capitalist are rich. I have stated that Communist nations have, as a matter of course, failed, or given up Communism for Capitalized Socialism.
And Vietnam is pretty far from rich.
Mexico is a democracy, yes. They have elections, which are usually regarded to be free and mostly fair. However, corruption is endemic to Mexico, on a scale that, to be honest, I don’t really comprehend. Much like China, Vietnam, Cuba, most Central American countries, and several European ones.
Yes, Mexico is a democracy. It is a democracy that is bogged down and in many ways countered by corruption, which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for true market forces and the rule of law to be effective. In many ways Mexico, like Cuba, is a failed state.
It happens. The Soviet Union was a failed state too.
You state that you look for theories that fit the facts. That’s not usually how it is done. Normally, one develps a theory, then finds facts to support it.
Theory: Communist nations (NOT Socialist) are an unworkable idea.
Facts to back it up: The collapse of the Soviet Union in the face of nationalistic ferver and a failed economic model. The failure of Cuba, the abandoning of Communism by China and Vietnam, and the clear example that is North Korea.
Theory: China is not a happy paradise like place.
Facts to support that theory: Repression of religion, repression of free speech, repression of information, restrictive internal movement, ecological disasters on a very widespread scale, corrupt business practices and a central government that is not responsive to the will of the people of China.
Are you sure you want to keep using Mexico as an example of capitalism’s failure? The GDP per capita there is twice ($10,211 to $5,606) your beloved Belarus. If Mexico is a failure than surely Belarus is far worse?
Speaking of that crappy little country, you haven’t mentioned Belarus once since I linked to the UN Human Rights Commision report. Any comments on that? Specifically why the UN thinks Belarus is a totalitarian dictatorship that is busy abusing its people while you continue to insist it’s a nation to be emulated?
My interpretation: All democracies are X.
Your interpretation: Only democracy Y is X.
I believe that, by the rules of the English language, my interpretation is a much better fit than yours. If I say, “men are stupid,” that seems to include the entire class of men. You, on the other hand, would rather weasel out of it by interpreting it as “Men are stupid, and when I say men, I don’t mean men, but rather Bob over there, who is a man.”
You’re going to need a good chiropractor once you get done bending yourself into knots in a futile attempt to salvage elbows’ ridiculous statement.
Sure you do. That’s why you were repeating the total number of Chinese-born people in the US ad nauseum. What, you don’t think any one of them was born before 1949?
A low per capita migration now means “leaving in droves?” Fascinating. You must speak a different form of English than the rest of us. And you still seem to be missing the concept of per capita immigration as opposed to absolute numbers. I am unimpressed with your mental capacity.
Which is a meaningless statement, since there has never been a Communist nation. What exactly do you mean when you refer to a given country as “Communist?”
So, in other words, capitalism is an awesome system that works wonders for all. Unless it doesn’t, in which case we still don’t blame the capitalism, but rather something else that hypothetically keeps capitalism from thriving. Got it.
Ultimately, then, this discussion with you is pointless, since you are unwilling to accept any fact that tends to indicate that your system doesn’t work while an opposing system does. If I point to a failed capitalist state, your default response is that it’s not capitalist, or that something is keeping capitalism back. If I point to a successful socialist state, your response is that it’s not socialist.
According to whom? Unsupported theories make neither scientific nor logical sense. What you describe is religion, not reality.
I see. And if we use this as a fill-in-the-blanks template, we can now “prove” any idea! We just need to stretch facts and use ridiculous examples, not to mention mischaracterizations! Let’s give it a whirl:
Theory: Capitalist nations are an unworkable idea.
Facts to back it up: The collapse of the [British Empire] in the face of nationalistic ferver and a failed economic model. The failure of [Mexico], the abandoning of Capitalism by [China, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea] and the clear example that is [Haiti].
Holy crap, it works! Political Arguments for Dummies! :rolleyes:
Didn’t you just strenuously argue that PRC is capitalist? So what are you doing beating on a capitalist nation? Won’t this mean that capitalism failed China? Oh, I remember now: it’s the corruption that’s causing the problems… Wait a minute… But you already admitted that China is relatively rich, though corrupt, while Mexico has failed because it is corrupt… So corruption is fatal to nations, seeing as it killed Mexico, but China is immune to the economic effects of corruption… But if corruption is not de facto a nation-killer, how can you claim that Mexico failed simply due to the presence of corruption, without more?
Wow, when you put it all together, your political world-view has more gaping holes in it than a slab of Swiss Cheese.
You’re going to give poor Mexico an inferiority complex the way you keep calling it a failure while proclaiming Belarus as a “growing powerhouse.”
Not only is the GDP per capita in Mexico twice that of Belarus, but they rank higher on the Human Development Index (Mexico:56; Belarus: 61) and have a much higher average life expectancy, especially for men, where Mexican men can expect to live a decade longer than their Belarusian counterparts. (Mexico: 73.7 male/78.6 female; Belarus: 63.1 male/75.2 female).
Just because Mexico pales in comparison to its northern neighbor doesn’t make it an abject failure compared to an actually shitty country.
A nation or nationstate with the founding principle behind of it Marxist Communism. That is, a state wherin there are no classes, all are equal, and workers control the means of production and the state provides for all the basic necessities, as well ad dictating what is needed from those aforementioned workers. I believe that the PRC, The Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Korea all fit that mold. Very few of them have managed to hold onto that model, as it is unworkable.
You are putting words in my mouth, which you know. At no point have I said that capitalism works wonders for all. You are twisting words and creating meanings out of thin air. I am shocked!
Capitalism has it’s flaws, no doubt. I’m just saying that a capitalist system is a much better functioning economic model than the failed systems implemented by failed Communist states. Universally, those have led to a criminally run black market in staple products, such as food and medical supplies, as well as luxuries like books, recording equipment and consumer electronics of all types. This is a flouting of Rule of Law, in addition to being an indicator of the failed economic policies.
Rule of Law is weak in Communist (not socialist, communist) states because it only applies to certain citizens, whereas the party members have a different standard, and those very high in the echelons are immune to all law. This weakens Rule of Law for everyone.
Once again, you are twisting my words. I have said in response to you touting China as some be all end all Workers Paradise that it is not Communist, it is more of a Socialist-Capitalist hybrid. Do you deny that? Because if you do, you are lying to yourself, or honestly delusional.
As for failed capitalist states, in most instance of them, the problem was not with capitalism per se, but a failure of Rule of Law, something that is key to having a successful state of ANY type, let alone a capitalist one. Yes, there are failed states that were/are capitalist. I don’t deny that. But I can’t think of one that was set up as a “Pure Capitalism”, with the intent of spreading some sort of “Capitalist Ideaology” through exporting their revolution or study of some fabricated Dialectic.
Failures of states such as Haiti are usually indicative of massive corruption at all levels, rather than capitalism itself. Corruption is usually illegal, so it’s presence is indicative of a failure of Rule of Law, again, rather than capitalism itself.
This is largely because Capitalism is not a philosophy, but a concrete economic principal, while Communism is a philosophy that is tied tightly to economic models, but is not in and of itself an economic model. Does that make sense?
Look up the scientific method. You are applying it backwards.
Step one: theory
Step two: research and experimentation
Step three a- confirm theory through research and experimentation OR
Step three b- reject theory based on reserach and experimentation
Step four: create new theory
Repeat until Singularity.
The British Empire dissolved, but Britain, a Capitalist Constitutional Monarchy, remains and is doing just fine. Note: It’s dissolution also created several other stable capitalist democracies. It also created some unstable failed states in Africa. The economic model of the British Empire was actually fairly sound, if a bit one sided. This is standard to any Colonial system, of course.
Mexico is not quite yet a failed state, though it is headed that way. This is more a problem of failure of Rule of Law, as I discussed above, but I expect you to handwave this away.
As for China and Vietnam rejecting Capitalism, I think you’re very wrong on that score. And continued rejection of Capitalism by North Korea has it running full tilt towards “Failed State” status. The only thing keeping North Korea from collapsing in a bloody war/Civil war is support from China, South Korea, and the West.
Haiti has a whole host of problems, none of which could be fixed by additional cash (Capitalism) or by a switching to a Communist or Socialist model. On that, I think you would agree. At least, I would hope you would agree.
No, it’s more an issue of you looking for BIG things, when the problems with Mexico are more complicated than that.
Mexico is dying due to a failure of Rule of Law, as indicated by the power and scope of the drug cartels. Corruption is a part of that, but a small one. Sadly, like a drop in literacy and unclean streets, corruption is a sign of the beginings of failure of Rule of Law. Mexico is still salvageable, but it’s going to take capital and effort that I don’t know if the Mexican gov’t can afford, both monetarily and politically.
It does give me hope to see you admit that China is a Capitalist state, however.
Commissar, each time somebody says “democracy”, you rebut them as if they had said “capitalist”. Is this deliberate on your part? “Democracy” is a political system, “capitalism” is an economic model, and while they often go together, they are not synonymous.
He’s refused to answer me about democratic socialism (you know, the kind that works, that doesn’t put millions in Gulags etc). He is utterly blinkered to the point that only revolutionary Marxist-Leninism can be considered socialist.
Not really. “Men are stupid” is more likely a statement of “Men, as a whole, are stupid” not “Each and every man is stupid”. Thus, for democracies as a whole the statement should hold true, versus each and every democracy.
I also offered up 2006, but you felt free to ignore that because it wasn’t to your liking.
Low per capita migration? Absolutely not. Once you come up with the numbers of people flocking into China from the United States we can compare the two per capita numbers. Want to bet on the outcome?
Yo, Commissar! Would you care to compare the number of North Koreans flocking into South Korea to the number of South Koreans fleeing to that worker’s paradise in North Korea?
Yes, my friend, “democracy” does not equal “capitalism.” I know that, and I try to keep the two separate in my discussions - unless my interlocutor conflates the two. For example, elbows stated:
“Oh, wait. Communist states deny freedom to leave to many of their citizens. Yet many risk their very lives to get out. While democracies are overwhelmed by immigration from everywhere in the world.”
As you can see, he’s using “democracy” to mean the opposite of “socialism,” which makes no sense unless we assume that he means “capitalist democracies.” Hence, I speak of capitalist democracies when responding to his point. Since I’m a fan of neither capitalism nor democracy, I’m not opposed to trashing both in one swell swoop.
I’m also ready to discuss socialist democracies or tyrannical capitalist states, of course, depending on where my fellow debaters wish to steer the discussion.
Nope. I already answered this towards the beginning of the thread, so you must have missed it.
I’ll repeat: yes, multi-party socialist states are currently socialist; no, they are not my preferred take on socialism. Any socialist nation that makes it easy for capitalists to seize power is playing with fire. When a capitalist government is but one election away, all of our hard-won gains can be wiped away with a swipe of the bourgeois hand. For the sake of stability and justice, I would prefer that socialists entrench themselves in power and make it as costly as possible for capitalists to try and usurp their authority.
I engage in no such conflation. The poster I was responding to spoke about what “Communist nations” do. Since there has never been a Communist nation, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that he was speaking of socialist nations.
I find it interesting that you’re trying to pin the mistakes of other posters on me.
