4 ms·

I suggest you look up the definition of "capitalist" and "communist." All successful nations today are, by definition, "capitalist," as in the government respe

I suggest you look up the definition of "capitalist" and "communist." All successful nations today are, by definition, "capitalist," as in the government respects the right of the people to own property. Yes, there are some successful mixed economies, but they are "mixed" because the government owns some of the means of production alongside the people, not the other way around. And even those few nations have been liberalizing over the last few decades, a trend which continues today. By the actual definition of "communism" there are no communist nations today, nor were there ever any for the reasons I gave in my initial argument. The definition of communism I've used for this discussion was actually more lenient than how it is defined. >The Communist Party of Cuba would be as surprised to learn that they aren't Communist The Communist Party of Cuba would not be surprised at all. They're just playing the game they've been given, and to think that they don't know the score is to assume they are all idiots right off the bat. >At any rate, the idea that all nations eventually trend towards capitalism is ludicrous Every formerly communist/socialist nation on the planet save one has moved to liberalize their economy in the last few decades, because communism/socialism is inherently flawed. All nations do, indeed, inevitably trend towards capitalism. If they choose not to, they inevitably fail, and once they pick up the pieces, they inevitably choose the alternative, which has been proven to succeed time and time again.

dragonwriter 13y ago
If you use as weak and binary a definition of "capitalism" as you expressly state that you are, then the idea of nations inevitably trending toward capitalism is even more ludicrous than it is if you use it in a meaningful way -- as it is, even currently socialist nations are "capitalist" (not trending toward it -- which is impossible, there is no way to have a variable distance from it -- but actually capitalist.)
- notdrunkatall 13y ago
  Yes, I've noticed that debates with those who advocate socialism over capitalism tend to devolve into arguments over semantics. It seems that so very few of you can argue in favor of your favorite alternative to capitalism well enough to refrain from nitpicking. It becomes tiresome after a while.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Using your weak definition of capitalism, I've rarely seen anyone advocate socialism over capitalism, since all socialism that I've seen advocated is compatible with (and even require) your weak definition of capitalism, they aren't alternatives to it. And, while there's probably some definitions of "socialism" and "capitalism" for which my preferred tuning of a modern mixed economy is more "socialism" than "capitalism", all I've been arguing in this thread is that your Marx-in-reverse arguments about the inevitability of capitalism are as ludicrous as Marxist fanatics arguments about the inevitability of Communism -- and that's not even related to advocacy about the desirability of any system.
    - notdrunkatall 13y ago
      Semantics.

dragonwriter 13y ago

If you use as weak and binary a definition of "capitalism" as you expressly state that you are, then the idea of nations inevitably trending toward capitalism is even more ludicrous than it is if you use it in a meaningful way -- as it is, even currently socialist nations are "capitalist" (not trending toward it -- which is impossible, there is no way to have a variable distance from it -- but actually capitalist.)

notdrunkatall 13y ago
Yes, I've noticed that debates with those who advocate socialism over capitalism tend to devolve into arguments over semantics. It seems that so very few of you can argue in favor of your favorite alternative to capitalism well enough to refrain from nitpicking. It becomes tiresome after a while.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Using your weak definition of capitalism, I've rarely seen anyone advocate socialism over capitalism, since all socialism that I've seen advocated is compatible with (and even require) your weak definition of capitalism, they aren't alternatives to it. And, while there's probably some definitions of "socialism" and "capitalism" for which my preferred tuning of a modern mixed economy is more "socialism" than "capitalism", all I've been arguing in this thread is that your Marx-in-reverse arguments about the inevitability of capitalism are as ludicrous as Marxist fanatics arguments about the inevitability of Communism -- and that's not even related to advocacy about the desirability of any system.
  - notdrunkatall 13y ago
    Semantics.