while also having a more environmentally sustainable economic model

what is objectively wrong

i'd like to

yeah that is correct

i don't see how you could dispute that

as of 2015 Cuba was ranked 9th out of 30 latin american countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

this is also hdi and not ihdi

inequality adjusted hdi would also likely be higher since in the data points that are used to calculate it that we have data available for cuba is ranked 1st and 2nd in its region, however unfortunately not all of the data needed to calculate it is available

african countries are almost entirely developing capitalist countries

why wouldn't you compare cuba to countries that have developed in similar circumstances

i mean having a dictatorship and having a capitalist economic system are not mutually exclusive

it was not

cuba has managed to provide a high standard of living for its region despite being under the thumb of the world hegemon that sits on its doorstep and also managed to survive the dissolution of the USSR and the economic and political difficulties that brought, i think that's a success story

because there are different kinds of capitalist systems

i mean cuba has made medical innovations regarding lung cancer vaccines and creating a way to birth babies from mothers with hiv without passing hiv to the baby

and i mean singapore is an exemplar

it's a city state

it's full of orientals and not sub-saharan africans

it had great leadership and great economic policies

that took advantage of its position as a city state

i don't see why african countries not being as successful as singapore means they aren't capitalist

that seems like an utterly retarded argument

what do you mean chris

so going through wars means they aren't capitalist?

wait so was france socialist in 2013?

i would say capitalism is a system characterized by private ownership over the means of production, production for exchange, wage labor, and capital accumulation, all of which describe venezuela's economic model perfectly

what do you mean

i never said anything about "state capitalism"

no because of the ownership of the means of production by private individuals

not the state

yes

venezuela has a smaller public sector than many european countries

do you want public sector employment figures or public sector as a percentage of gdp

for the former the latest figures i have are from 2012 and the latter 2013

it's actually not wrong and if you had done the most basic of research into venezuela you would know this, but none of the sargonite types have

http://cepr.net/blogs/the-americas-blog/public-sector-employment-in-venezuela-is-not-so-large-as-the-associated-press-suggests

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

the objective data presented is wrong because they're left wing 🤔

what about fox news http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/18/socialism-private-sector-dominates-venezuelan-economy-despite-chavez-crusade.html

is that too left leaning

sure

some of chavez's policies were good

but ultimately venezuela is not socialist

and has made virtually no progress toward becoming socialist

and people who call bolivia an example of successful socialism now are also wrong

because like venezuela it is not socialist

also here is data that shows that public sector as a percentage of gdp in venezuela was bigger in 1997 than in any year from 1999 (when Chavez was elected) to 2014 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QGc2eUlWXCC2DQkmikn4Bn7Ms5FcenHjnwBlPbVTxYY/edit?usp=sharing

socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned

the onus is on you to provide more recent data

you are trying to dismiss a 15 year trend

can you quote the part of that article that has data and isn't just saying that the venezuelan government expropriated something

it won't let me read it with adblocker on

it's really simple

in cuba, the means of production are owned collectively

cuba is socialist

in venezuela, they are largely owned privately

venezuela is not socialist

that doesn't prove anything

you can expropriate certain industries and still have capitalism

every capitalist country has a public sector

every capitalist country has state owned enterprise

so what? you have provided no proof that they have seized most private property

okay but the most recent statistics show that the private sector is far larger

the public sector

so that isn't socialism

i mean if you want to make that argument then norway is more socialist than venezuela

why not

their public sector is way bigger

even private sector activity is often driven by state investment

they have strong unions

what does the government having limitations have to do with anything

well i would consider it capitalist yeah

but if we're plotting countries on a spectrum norway is closer to being socialist than venezuela

those aren't my standards

the private sector was far from dominant in the ussr

of course, at any time the ussr could have privatized all of their state owned industries, ergo it was actually capitalist, in the same way the venezuelan government having the ability to expropriate private industry at any time makes them socialist

that isn't true werlf because you haven't banned me and i'm an autist who denies the holodomor

i could talk about it later krims

too bad, i'm going to go take a shower and eat breakfast

lol no

it's not remotely equivalent

trump being president and islamist parties gaining momentum in europe are completely different things

though i doubt europe will ever become fully islamized, because the failed liberal system will be abandoned before that happens

like it or not european countries need to start deporting people en masse

we agree on one thing that's very obvious

western imperialism in syria and libya has greatly contributed to the crisis

if you want a good foreign policy position to address this problem consider giving the syrian government material support so they can end the civil war faster

women do commit crime just a lot less

i highly doubt the difference in convictions for men and women is just down to anti-male bias

of course there's anti-male bias

i just think that assuming the difference between male and female conviction is just because of that is silly though

men are more violent and assertive

there are also more stupid men than stupid women

in the same way there are more smart men than smart women

patriarchal

bonobos don't have civilizations

we do

but not civilization

matriarchal civilization is basically an oxymoron

i was about to say that chimps can't even swim, but then again humans from africa can't swim either