@bingoh: OK so you're just deliberately avoiding my points now and are essentially just repeating the same conclusions over and over without supporting or countering, and what's more you admit it. “you have no right to an answer to your question” lol Yep we're done here.
@bingoh: No that's not my definition of a socialist country. I very clearly laid out what my definition of a socialist country is, and you ignored it. lol You keep calling them “isolated programs” even when they're not isolated at all, even when housing, education, transport, healthcare, unemployment, etc. etc. are all handled that way, you're still trying to downplay or deny their existence. “That's not a barrel of apples. That's an isolated apple, several times.” That's a socialist country, no matter how hard you try to label it otherwise.
You know, you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to China. Your knowledge is so deeply lacking in that area, despite what a compelling argument, “ask a Chinese businessman” is. There are plenty of private businesses in China. I personally own a private business in China. Sure the government can reach down and strong arm things if they want, but the US government does the same, as do all. How Huawei got completely cut off is a perfect example of what you're pretending not to see. And I never said having wealthy people makes a country capitalist. You totally made that up. It's the fact that they're doing gargantuan amounts of absolutely textbook capitalist business with the whole world that makes them capitalist. The way you try so desperately to paint it as socialist when it's so blatantly capitalist, and your sticking your head so firmly in the sand when it comes to labelling any oppressive country “capitalist”, really just exposes a bias that can't be reasoned with. You're not interested in learning, only confirming the ideas you like. And you'll call up “down” and black “white” before you'll admit the obvious.
And you also totally ignored my fantastic example of the extremely recent atrocities of capitalist big pharma corruption. The idea that you think corruption is a socialist phenomenon is so hilariously naive that I almost can't believe you believe it. Go on, tell me how it's different. I dare you.
And to top it off, you also ignored my very simple question, which I'll repeat: Even if you refuse to label a country a “socialist country”, if socialism “isn't for humans”, then why are the humans in the more socialist countries ranking higher in almost every positive metric we have? I'm. Waiting.
@bingoh:What you mean when you say, “They are capitalist countries that have integrated some socialist policies” is, they have replaced many of their their capitalist structures with socialist structures. If you're arguing that you're not really a socialist country until you've replaced all your capitalist systems with socialist ones, then the same logic should apply to capitalism: i.e. “You're not a capitalist country until you've no socialist systems.” You can't have it both ways. You need to look at housing, healthcare, education, transportation, etc. individually, and then decide whether the country on the whole is more socialist or capitalist. Doing so will show you that there's plenty of thriving socialist countries in 2021. Not wanting to understand what it actually is, you're simply defining socialism as “failure” then saying, “See, all socialist countries failed.” You've just built a tiny feedback loop. And even if you refuse to define any successful country as a “socialist country”, why are the more socialist countries more happy, healthy, and productive than the more capitalist ones? It's a very simple question. Since it “doesn't work for humans”, I'm kind of demanding an answer for that one.
Cuba is a communist country, and as such its economy is smothered. The Soviet Union was also communist. Venezuela killed itself simply because one idiot thought the flow of oil would be infinite, which was just unbelievably short-sighted, and nothing to do with socialism despite being quite socialist at the time. China however, you really need to do your homework on. There's nothing socialist about China at all. It's the beating heart of global capitalism, and all its social infrastructure is capitalist in nature. It's an inherently capitalist country, which is why it and the US are so tightly coupled. And you're right, most people there really don't care about the environment or society, etc. In fact it's comparable to the American political right. Really they just focus on how they personally can benefit in the short term.
And as for your final point, (“Every time fully socialist societies have been established, people or groups have used and manipulated the society to their own benefit to gain power and wealth.”) may I just remind you that in the most capitalist country on earth, American big pharma was recently found responsible for almost 50,000 American deaths per year from intentional opioid over-prescription, several years in a row, with an annual economic cost estimated at nearly $80bn, and they were given an inconsequential fine, a slap on the wrist, and sent back to work. That whole saga was pure capitalist from top to bottom, and big corporations get away with massive criminality constantly, so don't even bother playing that card.
@bingoh: To contradict you, humans generally start caring about charity, and the advancement of species, and the environment, etc. once they reach a certain (relatively low) level of financial security. The thing about capitalist societies is that feeling “financially secure” doesn't come until much, much later. If ever. Which is what drives normal people to do horrible things in the name of providing for their family or whatever. It's the same paranoia which makes certain people highly aggressive and rude, and why more socialist countries are far more relaxed and polite.
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, Belgium, and New Zealand, all have highly socialist policies, and most of them rank higher than the US in basically every way imaginable (with the exception of GDP), and believe it or not, all of the people who live there are in fact humans.
You have an equally ugly and very generalised view of humanity. I know that you feel the need to open discussions with insults, but not everyone on this planet is as hostile towards other human life. Heck if you think humanity is such a disease then why do you even bother? It hardly even matters if it's true or not. The fact is that thinking this way makes it far worse. A prerequisite to improving humanity is believing and investing in it. (Which, by the way, is not the same thing as investing in corporations and hoping they'll do the humanity-saving for you). I think mankind's spiritual and material potential is limitless, and what's more I think the evidence for that is beyond obvious. All you have to do is look back at how we were, just a century or two ago. If all you care about is yourself and your family, then you're just a puppet on the hand of your DNA, and life really is meaningless.
This is the holocaust, by the way, just so you know, what's happening, right now. You don't need a world war to have a holocaust. The CCP has spread its army of slaves out across the country, making it impossible to avoid them without avoiding China altogether, because they're wagering we're too greedy to pass it up. And it turns out they're absolutely, 100% right. They've got us totally figured out, and wrapped around their finger.
If anyone actually cares about this, game addiction is an enormous problem in China. Way, way bigger than what we think of as problematic in the west. And gaming in China is 99.9% mobile. This is because the west adopted tech right alongside the invention of the computer, but China didn't really adopt tech until right around the release of the iPhone, and they had a total ban on consoles until a few years ago. So they skipped the computer almost entirely. Most people don't have or want access.
But serious homework doesn't start until middle school, and you're thrown right into the deep end the first week. It's relentless. It's the first major transition in a Chinese child's life, and it's also right around the time when they get their first phone. But Chinese parents won't give their child a crappy phone if they can help it, because they think it would make their family lose face at school. So every child starting serious study, gets a gaming device at exactly the wrong time. And for young boys especially, it's like a bottomless bag of cocaine in their pocket. They are utterly hooked like you wouldn't believe, and it's always right there, any time. And 99% of the time, the parents make no attempt to curb it. Oh they complain about it, constantly, even as it's decimating their scores, but they never actually do anything about it, despite all my easy suggestions.
The Chinese economy is struggling at the moment, and it's only going to get worse for the next 30 years, as China faces a drought of economic producers and a tidal wave of pensioners. A couple months ago they replaced the two-child policy with a three-child one, but trends show it won't move the needle. People aren't having babies. So while this tech is definitely being used to tighten the CCP's grip on the people, they're also legitimately scared of a generation of relatively well-off boys who are playing video games and dropping out of school, being openly dissatisfied with the CCP's society for the rest of their lives, and leaving the economy high and dry in their absence. Made even worse by Chinese society's inherently sexist nature, which pushes boys towards the workplace and girls away from it.
Gaming aside, the CCP needs to learn something about complex systems. They treat people like machines, and every time they reach down their divine hand, some totally unforeseen consequence rears its ugly head some time later. (Their subsidised push to get everyone a fast smartphone being just one example.) It's incredibly poetic seeing the way they've backed themselves into a corner. They can keep making moves for now, but the game is already over. They simply can't support the weight of the country they've created. I would be surprised if the PRC survives its first century.
naryanrobinson's comments