> ”I never said that we don't have capitalism now "despite the lack of ideological purity." again, you're misrepresenting my argument to fit your own argument.”

> ”I never said that we don't have capitalism now "despite the lack of ideological purity." again, you're misrepresenting my argument to fit your own argument.” No, you didn’t say that, but you keep using similar logic to ignore all of the socialist messes in the 20th century ie “No, that’s not socialism. That’s a dictatorship.” I’m just showing you how ridiculous that argument is. > “again, you're cherry picking failure to fit your bias and you are also ignoring history (aka, in your own words, you have a weak argument). we've had almost a hundred years of success of socialism in finnish countries, particularly norway. i already know that you're gonna argue that BuT nOrWaY iS cAPiTaLIsM!!, but that's not true.” I love how you keep accusing me of “cherry picking”, when you’re the one primarily doing it. For the record, there are only three Scandinavian countries (or four if you count Finland) while there are over 40 countries that were or are still socialist. > “ we've had almost a hundred years of success of socialism in finnish countries, particularly norway.” Now you’re cherry picking one out of three countries, with a ridiculous point that is completely untrue. Norway might have a well funded socialist program, but that’s different from having a socialist economic system. “According to a 2018-report from Statistics Norway, ten per cent of the population in the country owned 60 per cent of the wealth. The one per cent richest in the country owned nearly 21 per cent of all the wealth.” https://sciencenorway.no/economics-equality-finans/is-economic-inequality-in-norway-really-as-bad-as-in-the-uk-and-france/1866424 https://sciencenorway.no/economics-equality-finans/is-econom... Countries with socialist economic systems also don’t have stock markets. > ”go look at norway's nearly 80% of wealth that is held in public ownership when you don't count housing...that is a very clear success in history. so, you're right” You’re proving my point for me that it’s ridiculous to call Norway socialist, and you’re being hypocritical for cherry picking. Yes, it's totally reasonable to overlook an important fact to make your argument work /s Real estate is a huge asset, and has been considered wealth for thousands of years. > ”EDIT: also, based on your argument style, i think that you might say, "but you said that socialism is a cooperative model and not norway. GOTCHA!" if that's the case, then LOL because you're missing the point and proving that you're only trying to win an argument.” I’m not missing any point. You're just ignoring facts. I also find it funny that you’re self aware of just how flawed your argument is. Yet you still can’t admit to being wrong. Co-operatives barely work in a single location, let alone scale up nationally. Also it’s really ironic how you can comfortably loosen your definition of socialism to cherry pick. > ”we’ve seen it work in reality and we've seen it fail in reality.” No, we haven’t. The Scandinavian countries are all capitalist systems. > ”ignores the many, many countless examples where that organization model has worked and has proven to be more resilient than a capitalist enterprise.” There are so few of them across several continents. Moreover, most if not all of them are tiny. > ”I would share more examples with you but you clearly have no desire to learn and just want to win an argument.” You mean that you’re going to cherry pick yet again, while continually accusing me of the same thing? There’s barely a thousand of them compared to millions of private businesses. > “you’re right, but you're ignoring the fact that socialism, in it's right form, is a democratic system.” That may be its “right” form in your mind, but that’s not how it evolves in reality due to the extreme centralization of power. Virtually all of them didn’t even incorporate voting for the masses into their governments. > ”maybe i'm too optimistic, but that knowledge is a lousy reason to not setup a system of democratic to safeguard against this truth” That knowledge is called studying history to avoid repeating the dozens of failures in the 20th century. Like I said, socialism is no longer a new experiment. We know what late stage socialism looks like, and how fast it takes to get there. For many countries, these systems couldn’t even last a 100 years. > “the ability to hack democracy is one of those questions that keep me up at night, and i see it as a challenge and problem to solve rather than something to cede to (which should get the HN crowd excited).” I am not ceding anything. You’re just ignoring a fundamental truth. Capitalism is flawed, but it’s still better than socialism because it handles corruption better due to its focus on decentralization by design. > ”clearly this truth of corruption is abused in capitalism and it's exacerbated since we don't have the safeguard of a democratic process to prevent these abuses.” You still haven’t countered my argument as to why corruption spreads much faster and is more pervasive in a socialist system as opposed to a capitalist one. If you need reminding why, it’s because socialist systems centralize power much more than capitalist systems. Essentially saying that it will just magically work is not a good argument. > ”at least with socialism, there's democracy.” Out of close to 50 socialist systems in the 20th century, only one of them was a democracy, and I don’t even think it lasted a year. What you wrote is baseless and untrue.