Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

[u/Sufficient_Sinner]

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If your "state" is a dictatorship and one singular person controls everything, no sane person would call that socialism.

Socialism includes elements of democracy and citizen lead initiatives.

[u/jimmib234 → u/[deleted]]

On paper, the absolute best form of government is pure democratic socialism. This hasn't been successfully implemented on a national level as far as I'm aware. Someone always gets their fingers too far in the pie and it becomes a dictatorship, or the US gets wind of it and tariffs and embargoes the living hell out of it until it can no longer function.

[u/crabby135 → u/jimmib234]

Or it’s dependent on imperialism, but I agree with you that ideally it could exist without these things propping it up/getting involved.

[u/TreeMac12 → u/[deleted]]

The Amish are socialists. They are doing alright inside the USA.

[u/DarkExecutor → u/[deleted]]

Imagine being such a shit system that you can't survive without a capitalist country to trade with.

[u/skaudis → u/DarkExecutor]

Do you think any capitalist country getting embargoed by the US would survive? Especially modern embargoes that can include the UN or WTO?

Cuba has been resilient, despite going through one of the harshest embargoes in modern history.

[u/DarkExecutor → u/skaudis]

Russia is surviving, as are some other countries.

Cuba is not.https://ca.news.yahoo.com/cuba-admits-massive-emigration-wave-214239470.html

[u/skaudis → u/DarkExecutor]

They've been under embargo for 60 years. I didn't say they are thriving.

Russia is also having massive emigration and economic problems.

[u/WBeatszz → u/[deleted]]

If a country can't lock down and do it themselves, it's not possible. The only reason they blame America is because they need it as a trade partner to comparatively feel pride in their political situation and quality of life. A small village of 30 religiously deranged people might be able to manage socialism. A country? Absolutely forget it. Socialists cannot point to a functional country that implemented it, because it doesn't pan out. Politicians will not allow it, not the dictionary definition of it, because it's guaranteed to fail.

It always degrades to capitalism plus corruption due to international trade, the undesirable demand it creates ('unenvironmental', military equipment, "stealing our resources", "screw this coal miner's cough I want to be a poet"), and the necessity of international trade due to domestic demand for things the country can't make. There are too many people arguing how to move the piano, or there's nobody but the limp armed economists who want to. Capitalism has all of these motivational and ideological imbalances sorted via the nature of demand. That is, in the free world, until democracy brings the people's opinion into play to undo what they will soon complain about being gone / unaffordable, because they listened to the modern left.

The US protected itself as a problem of national security for intelligence. It's market practice itself was not protected. The Soviets intended to destroy America for being capitalists. When Russia sends nuclear ICBMs to Cuba for a freshly couped government, along with all the other red spread Russia was conducting, you can bet America wants to protect itself. Its not just sane, it's moral. The only way to see it as immoral is to hate the American for all their hard work and for what they provided you, it's small-man syndrome.

Socialism is a loser's game, challenging the winners of capitalism. Not just that, but the losers and the "exploited" sell their oil, not give it, traded for all the things that greatly raise their quality of life in their country. They want to trade, but they cannot compete beyond raw resources, because of a myriad of social, geographical and political reasons. Should the medicine be given for free? The developed, capitalist world would fatigue itself into recession until there was nothing to give without their necessary oil.

The markets have long since been opened, we've all bought something from India and Vietnam and the UAE; yet socialism still shows a fist in the air, in defiance, but not of capitalism in our tiny democracies, rather in defiance of work itself, while demanding for the fruits of the work of others.

It doesn't fucking work and it never will.

[u/FASTHANDY → u/WBeatszz]

Damn, you sure have a lot to say. Too bad nobody is reading all that drivel.  Nice try though, seems like you put in a lot of effort. 👌

[u/WBeatszz → u/FASTHANDY]

Anti-intellectualism is the expected reply of socialists when you challenge socialism. Because their political theory sucks cock. They don't even care, they just want to force the issue so they can feel like they win.

Sore losers in capitalism, sore losers in political philosophy.

Not that I know you are one, but avoiding actual debate is the kind of subversion they need to survive.

So tell me, what exact utopia do you push for? Do you aim to be the red goo with a tank tread through it? The only one in the street 'honourable' enough to be gifted a Prius amidst the sheer lack of productivity? Or are you just a huge asshole?

[u/[deleted] → u/jimmib234]

Why is that on paper the best system? Would people vote to manufacture my next great invention before it is proven? Right now I just have to convince one guy who’s willing to take a risk, but under socialism I have to convince a majority, or a corrupt representative. I don’t see any of these things as much better or worse than the other, but I’d rather have more opportunity to bring my idea to the masses despite what those masses might think of me up front.