5 ms·

I can't see any reason to downvote this, I don't think it's at all wrong.

merpnderp 7y ago
China's pivot from Marxism to Capitalism has brought more people out of abject poverty, in a miraculously short period, than any other change in history. It isn't perfect, but there's no other viable option.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
  Roman pivot from local city state with domain to a expanding empire has objectively made the life of many barbarians better. What have the romans ever doen for thus?
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  The CCP controls the markets. It's not a free market and thus not capitalism (I am ready to be corrected on any of these points). But that's an aside, the point is that exploitative labour practices come about because of what @netsharc says. You've sidestepped his and my point. If it was you or your children in a sweatshop you mightn't be so gung-ho.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    It's not a free market and thus not capitalism (I am ready to be corrected on any of these points). Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. It often goes hand-in-hand with free markets, but they're not the same thing.
    - larnmar 7y ago
      And this is why arguing about “capitalism” is pointless, there’s a bunch of incompatible definitions. You are using a definition closer to Marx’s, while the GP is using a definition closer to Rand’s. (Most people use a fizzier definition than either of these.) Just let these definitional arguments go, they’re not interesting or valuable.
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        Let them go and you have no definitional basis on which to argue, and then how can you engage? I can't see any debate can be at all possible like that. As a general principle agree your definitions before you lock horns and you'll start getting somewhere, if no further than agreeing to disagree.
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      > It often goes hand-in-hand with free markets, but they're not the same thing. As an example, interest rate fixing by central banks in DM countries is anathema to free markets and price discovery; yet ownership of production is privatized.
- larnmar 7y ago
  But crediting the CCP for bringing people out of poverty is like thanking the guy who was drowning you for stopping drowning you.
- Blackthorn 7y ago
  No other viable option? I recall the Soviet Union's entrance into communism transformed them in a single generation from a backwards nation with serfs to a nation that won the space race, despite facing two wars, one of which involved a genocidal dictator intent on completely destroying them.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    One of the reasons WWI broke out when it did was that the German General Staff knew that within ten years they would not be able to win a war with the Russian Empire. The USSR was a lot more backward economically than the Russian Empire, as would be expected when you cut yourself off from world trade and investment and kill large portions of your educated classes. Serfdom was abolished in 1861, so no the USSR did not go from serfdom to the space race.

China's pivot from Marxism to Capitalism has brought more people out of abject poverty, in a miraculously short period, than any other change in history. It isn't perfect, but there's no other viable option.

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
Roman pivot from local city state with domain to a expanding empire has objectively made the life of many barbarians better. What have the romans ever doen for thus?
tempguy9999 7y ago
The CCP controls the markets. It's not a free market and thus not capitalism (I am ready to be corrected on any of these points). But that's an aside, the point is that exploitative labour practices come about because of what @netsharc says. You've sidestepped his and my point. If it was you or your children in a sweatshop you mightn't be so gung-ho.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  It's not a free market and thus not capitalism (I am ready to be corrected on any of these points). Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. It often goes hand-in-hand with free markets, but they're not the same thing.
  - larnmar 7y ago
    And this is why arguing about “capitalism” is pointless, there’s a bunch of incompatible definitions. You are using a definition closer to Marx’s, while the GP is using a definition closer to Rand’s. (Most people use a fizzier definition than either of these.) Just let these definitional arguments go, they’re not interesting or valuable.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      Let them go and you have no definitional basis on which to argue, and then how can you engage? I can't see any debate can be at all possible like that. As a general principle agree your definitions before you lock horns and you'll start getting somewhere, if no further than agreeing to disagree.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    > It often goes hand-in-hand with free markets, but they're not the same thing. As an example, interest rate fixing by central banks in DM countries is anathema to free markets and price discovery; yet ownership of production is privatized.
larnmar 7y ago
But crediting the CCP for bringing people out of poverty is like thanking the guy who was drowning you for stopping drowning you.
Blackthorn 7y ago
No other viable option? I recall the Soviet Union's entrance into communism transformed them in a single generation from a backwards nation with serfs to a nation that won the space race, despite facing two wars, one of which involved a genocidal dictator intent on completely destroying them.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  One of the reasons WWI broke out when it did was that the German General Staff knew that within ten years they would not be able to win a war with the Russian Empire. The USSR was a lot more backward economically than the Russian Empire, as would be expected when you cut yourself off from world trade and investment and kill large portions of your educated classes. Serfdom was abolished in 1861, so no the USSR did not go from serfdom to the space race.