They're still at the end if the day capitalism, economically.

If you have to compete with the state funded company it isn't a free and fair market

the market has become less free when you have to compete with a business that simply will not fail because the state supports it

it's not fair competition

the freer the market the more capitalistic it is

If your definition was true, there wouldn't be monopolies or price gouging or shitty overall employment if there was a free market.

But those often happen in free markets.

Those happen in every system because the governments grants them special treatment

No it doesn't.

Look up standard oil.

In a truly capitalistic society they would only have to do 2 things to rise to the top: deliver the best product at the best price

Name me a system without monopolies

The very reason why monopolies don't exist is because every government has anti-monopoly laws of some sort

Uh

Socialism

lol

lmao

the monopoly there is the state

Define monopoly

Having all the resources, making it very hard for newcomers to challenge you

The socialist state often make it extremely hard because of all sorts of rules you have to abide to

Right, and the socialist state fits that to a t

And this would be detestable in a working class government, how?

With worker's councils?

Because you forbid it to let people make their own decisions to run their own company, it's anti freedom

You talk a lot about being free, but a free market rarely sees a lot of freedom for those who are employed by the people who reap the nost benefits.

Not everyone will become a business owner.

That's fact.

Probably because they are hindered in opening their own business

It's even worse in Hong Kong, which was rated like the top highest in economic freedom.

Have to deal with the unions, regulations and being taxed to high hell

Yet people from China fled to Hong Kong

They have shitty tenants for their workers to live in. They have lights and water and that's about it, and they have no union representation, and it's often a dirty place.

You would not like to be a working class person from Hong Kong.

Compared to what other country around it?

What's a better country near hong kong?

Indonesia? Malaysia? Japan with it's insane work hours?

None because they're all shitholes and they can be better under socialism.

Compared to your socialist utopia yes

I'd rather compare it to other countries in history

What socialist utopia?

It's quite literally the course of history

The one that has never been achieved by any socialist country

Uh, wrong.

Or can you point to one?

Yugoslavia.

Very poor compared to the west at that time

Very poor?

Yes

It had great relations with the East and West

Or did the western people flee to Yugoslavia?

Booming economy for a time.

People didn't need to flee lol.

Until the racism came

No but people do to Hong Kong, Singapore and the west in general

If it's a shining beacon people will go to it

Okay? That can depend on several factors. It doesn't mean they're great.

It really does

Why else would they come here?

Your point?

Western corporations fled to China to basically have slave labor wages

Because the chinese government promised no competition I imagine

I'll be back in a bit, like 15 min

No.

It's a second world country, no unions, good infrastructure and tons of workforce.

And you're telling me we should be promoting this for "freedom"?

Freedom certainly not for the hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers who lost their jobs in the 80s and 90s.

Why take China as an example when Hong Kong or Singapore are much more capitalistic?

And if you get to say that china is capitalistic than I can open up a can of worms with your socialists utopias all day long

Where was the paradise for the millions who starved under backwards retarded socialist policies?

Was there any social mobility in the socialist countries?

Face it, capitalism won in the end, sadly a lot of countries are now falling into the same trap of thinking the state should provide ever more services

And if you say that wasn't real socialism well then

It's simply the result of having that much power in the hands of so few, you only need one malevolent moron to take power to bring your people to starvation

@Timo))) now I don't really have time to engage with you, but I will quickly reply to something you asked me.
"If you're saying that a free market is not capitalism I don't know what to tell you
What economic books have you read that claim it isn't?"
I'd just like to talk about the statement that the free market or just market is capitalism. Simplifying it to this kinda falls apart when you look at some things. Fx, there were markets, arguably free markets before we had capitalism and some anti-capitalist movements have been market oriented, like market socialism. While not very popular, mutualism is likewise also a radical socialist free-market ideology.
If you wanna keep to your definition, then I'd ask you to explain to me what people mean when they say that the french revolution turned the society from feudalism to capitalism, because the main thing that changed sure wasn't

how free the market was

Never said it was exclusive to capitalism, just that to have capitalism you have to have a free market

capitalism was a thing before people called it capitalism, as with most things the name comes later

wow, there's some shitty reasoning there

The countries that were mainly part of the Eastern Bloc were already poor and undeveloped before the institution of the Soviet Union and its associated economic structure, along with countries around it, but part of the overall system. The only real exception to that is Eastern Germany, which was destroyed by World War II anyway.

The Western countries had for a long time the benefits of their colonies in Africa and Asia (most notably India for the UK, Africa for the UK and France, and South America and a good amount of Pacific islands for the U.S. After decolonization, they continued the economic exploitation of the third world, along with having the majority of world trade since they benefited from already being the richest countries in the world, due to their previous colonial exploitation, as well as support from the U.S., which was built by settler colonialism against Native Americans.

The countries that were generally able to develop the most in this post-war period, disregarding city states like Singapore and Hong Kong, which is obviously purposely disingenuous since other countries cannot follow their example, were generally those within the Soviet sphere of control or those who were able to remain separate from the control of either the Americans or Soviets.

Compare most of Eastern Europe today to how it was under Soviet rule, today there's more crime, more suicide, more alcoholism, the population is decreasing because it basically doesn't want to live anymore. Russia invaded the Ukraine, but Ukrainians were already killing themselves with heart disease and alcoholism.

Cuba has much higher education and living standards than El Salvador or Haiti, other Caribbean islands.

Nigeria is very rich in oil, but they can't stop their population growth and they don't have control over their own resources, which means the government has not been able to invest in infrastructure and education.

Social mobility is not an issue in a socialist country, though the population became much more literate and wealthy, when compared to earlier. The idea of social mobility is a capitalist concept, that there are classes and that people can ascend classes, the idea in socialism is to move with your class, not above it.

tldr

well you have to write a little bit to counter the amount of incorrectness in his posts, I wrote it concisely and clearly

I assume that whole wall of text is a statement and you think it's poorly written, or is a part of it your refutal

umm, isn't it obvious?

I was commenting on timo's point of view

ah

his reasoning was shit

well okay, I thought it was out of context

ahh, sorry

guess I came a little late to the convo anyway but I just joined 😛

it's mostly just me not wanting to read it that's the problem heh

tl;dr socialist countries started out poor and developed, capitalist countries were already rich before, Hong Kong and Singapore are city states and don't count

How come Japan turned into a richer country than China?

They were equally poor at around 1860

Same thing with Chile, how come they are the most wealthy latin country?

US sugardaddy

China was exploited by Western countries for centuries, also yes, U.S. support

US supported Pinochet but not with subsidies