Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 333412852327120897
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?
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
Japan's industry today is based off of the Korean War
Fact is Chile adopted the free market approach
Japan became more wealthy than their neighbours because they dropped the isolationism and adopted the free market
simple as that
umm, no
Japan did not adopt a free market
Show me a country that improved greatly without millions suffering that didn't use the free market