most people in these parts are skeptical of capitalism @Xinyue

capitalism as a goal in and of itself is 💩

that is, most people here are opposed to the private ownership of means of production? wew, wasn't aware that I'm surrounded by literal socialists! in that case....

**Салют, товарищи!**

no, not entirely for it either. best economy is a protectionist one. meaning the private individuals of your nation come first. Taking from these private individuals and giving it off to the public sector is pretty much you flushing ur economy down a toilet. Now you're free to tax foreign companies as much as you want and get your gibs that way

so capitalism then

as I suspected

mixed rather

after all the economy is predicated there on private ownership of means of production

what you are proposing is some kind of right-wing version of social democracy

but still capitalism

the only non-capitalist movements are socialist ones, because socialists are the only people who reject private ownership of means of production. therefore yours is not in any way a movement skeptical of capitalism, merely a more mixed form of it

perhaps "moderate capitalism" would be a good term

"national capitalism" comes to mind too

ok, if the private individual behaves like utter shit and goes against the national interest, his shit can be seized

so fuck u soros

well sure, I get that this is what you want. I just maintain that this in no way escapes the sphere of capitalism. indeed, "national capitalism" should be a good term - capitalism subjected to the *raison d'etat* of the nation

its grossly inferior to socialism though

the capitalist still needs to be a socialist man and the gov't can't lean too much on the man

a capitalist cannot be a socialist; nor vice versa. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying?

I'm explaining an ideal, that's very implausible

anyway, he can't only look how to satisfy his bottom line but also to preserve the culture around him.
work has to be hard as well. otherwise people will get lazy

but this is nonsensical. the capitalists will wield the power in society, so long as capitalism is preserved. in no way will the nation as a whole have a say in how the resources are spent. this is in the final analysis only possible under socialist productive relations

he can't be preserved. he needs to wield that power for the good of the nation, sometimes maybe even against himself, he has to be a moral person and not a calculating one.

except that the people that capitalism selects are, really by necessity, the people most willing to be ruthless in business....after all, under capitalist selection, the moral ones do not, in fact, raise to the top. the altruists, those looking for the good of their nation - but rather, those who seek to benefit and advance their own egoist interest

because if the state preserves the capitalist then its capitalism

and further, so long as capitalism remains the primary mode of production, the state itself will be dependent upon the capitalist

after all,

it is the capitalist who provides service, owns infrastructure and distributes goods

the capitalist is the root of the corruption that takes hold in nations

and socialism is the cure

to an extent

a poison to cure a poison

embrace the third position

reject both

heh, no system is perfect, this much is true. but socialism beyond a shadow of a doubt serves a nation the best. its somewhat remarkable to me that so many nationalists are right-wingers, when left-nationalism would serve the nation they *claim* to love so much better

internationalism is obviously superior, but this has no bearing on the mistake that many nationalists do

tbh international capitalism can go fuck itself

China along with it as well

they are probably the best example of what ruthless capitalism can be like

ironically a communist nation

oh China is not communist in the slightest, and I literally wish them to crash and burn to ashes. I harbour nothing but contempt for that nation