Quote (fender @ 3 Dec 2017 23:26)

it's really interesting how ridiculously uninformed many people, especially right wing americans it seems, are when it comes to "socialism" and "capitalism". you guys really don't do nuance, do you? you really think things like affordable college education, reasonable worker / environmental protection, and universal healthcare inevitably lead to empty store shelves, huh?

reality is, most of the wealthiest and healthiest countries in the world with the highest living standards are significantly more "socialist" than america - but somehow suggesting such an approach (instead of failing with supply side economics for the 72nd time) reliably triggers the lazy "starving communist" response - which is even more ironic when you consider how high america's poverty rate is for example. the whole idea that anything "socialist" somehow equals "communist" and "bad" is so incredibly simplistic that i'm always amused to see who is willing to expose themselves by perpetuating that idiotic narrative.

just to be clear, generally speaking capitalism is clearly the superior and more successful approach, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. but it's also clear that some aspects of it have to be regulated in order to benefit the whole population rather than just a few. the toxic "if you're critical of some of its extreme aspects (corporate owned politicians, ppl dying because they can't afford available medication / healthcare...), you're anti-capitalist" rhetoric just shows how ignorant and unsophisticated some people are...


https://i.imgur.com/Zezxonz.png

Quote (fender @ Dec 3 2017 03:26pm)

it's really interesting how ridiculously uninformed many people, especially right wing americans it seems, are when it comes to "socialism" and "capitalism". you guys really don't do nuance, do you? you really think things like affordable college education, reasonable worker / environmental protection, and universal healthcare inevitably lead to empty store shelves, huh?

reality is, most of the wealthiest and healthiest countries in the world with the highest living standards are significantly more "socialist" than america - but somehow suggesting such an approach (instead of failing with supply side economics for the 72nd time) reliably triggers the lazy "starving communist" response - which is even more ironic when you consider how high america's poverty rate is for example. the whole idea that anything "socialist" somehow equals "communist" and "bad" is so incredibly simplistic that i'm always amused to see who is willing to expose themselves by perpetuating that idiotic narrative.

just to be clear, generally speaking capitalism is clearly the superior and more successful approach, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. but it's also clear that some aspects of it have to be regulated in order to benefit the whole population rather than just a few. the toxic "if you're critical of some of its extreme aspects (corporate owned politicians, ppl dying because they can't afford available medication / healthcare...), you're anti-capitalist" rhetoric just shows how ignorant and unsophisticated some people are...


https://i.imgur.com/Zezxonz.png

Quote (Scaly @ Dec 3 2017 08:53pm)

Give me an example of a modern 'free market capitalist society' and I'll show you a country with socialist institutions handing out welfare or the disabled living in extreme poverty.

Quote (JohnMiller92 @ 3 Dec 2017 21:06)

Welcome back Fender

Quote (fender @ Dec 3 2017 06:26pm)

just to be clear, generally speaking capitalism is clearly the superior and more successful approach, there is no doubt about that whatsoever.

Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 4 2017 12:07pm)

Every capitalist country is first world except for africa and middle east pretty much.

On the other hand, do you know any first world socialist countries?

Quote (EndlessSky @ 4 Dec 2017 01:07)

Every capitalist country is first world except for africa and middle east pretty much.

On the other hand, do you know any first world socialist countries?

Quote (Scaly @ Dec 3 2017 05:50pm)

Depends what you mean by 'socialist'. Socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive.... I know that's hard for some people to believe.
'First world' as a classification also doesn't mean much. You'd have to specify what you actually mean by the term.

But in answer to your question - Much of Scandinavia has a lot of socialist institutions, in fact a large part of Europe does. Even the UK is pretty damn socialist. Even America... Not as much as some places in Europe of course but even America has a lot of socialist institutions. For a society to function properly you need a balance of socialism and some means by which to fund that socialism. Often that means engaging in capitalist enterprises.

The main difference between African countries that are heavily capitalist and European countries in terms of public health and wellbeing is the LACK of socialist institutions.

Quote (Scaly @ Dec 3 2017 09:50pm)

Depends what you mean by 'socialist'. Socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive.... I know that's hard for some people to believe.
'First world' as a classification also doesn't mean much. You'd have to specify what you actually mean by the term.

But in answer to your question - Much of Scandinavia has a lot of socialist institutions, in fact a large part of Europe does. Even the UK is pretty damn socialist. Even America... Not as much as some places in Europe of course but even America has a lot of socialist institutions. For a society to function properly you need a balance of socialism and some means by which to fund that socialism. Often that means engaging in capitalist enterprises.

The main difference between African countries that are heavily capitalist and European countries in terms of public health and wellbeing is the LACK of socialist institutions.

Quote (EndlessSky @ 4 Dec 2017 03:52)

Scandanavia is better because its 98+% white