Hammer and sickle?

[Kooky]

"Communism" could become a trigger too.
But even the socialists here shy away from
advocating that further descent into hell.

Yea, it's kind of sad what's become of the Paris Commune after the capitalists got to it.

 

[Stevicus]

Sounds like the No True Scotsman argument.
Scripture can be so vague & open to variied interpretations
that one cannot reasonably claim it means only one thing.
Thus, religion is as the religion does.

Would you apply the same argument to capitalism? Capitalism is as capitalism does? You said that capitalism does some positive things. So has religion.

My point was about publicly stated principles. If religion practiced what it preached (i.e. Golden Rule, Love Thy Neighbor, etc.), then it would do a lot better than it has done in the past.

But capitalists do follow their stated principles, which is to gain profit. It doesn't really matter how they do it or how many people they have to roll over or kill. Just as long as they get profit. That's the only principle they have.

Your post pares away other significant traits.
This might help....
Capitalism - Wikipedia
Excerpted....
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in capital and financial markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7]

None of this refutes the core principle of making money. That's the bottom line, no matter how spin it.

Rule of thumb: If the goal is making profit, then it is a capitalistic motivation. Slavery, conquest, and expansionism are about gaining resources and making money. Sure, they might hide behind some religious or nationalistic motivation to trick the masses into going along with it, but the underlying motive is always money, and that's what makes it ultimately capitalistic in its scope. And that's also why capitalism must ultimately blamed for such atrocities, even beyond religion or nationalism (although both can be pretty bad, too).

You're wrong here.
I've considered all socialist countries in history.
They're 100% economic & socially oppressive.

100%? Really? This is why it's sometimes difficult to argue with you, since you make these kinds of sweeping statements.

Such is how socialism tends to play out in the real world.

And as I've noted previously, socialism has had some great successes in the real world. I've tried to get you to compare pre-revolutionary Russia and China with their post-revolutionary incarnations, and the difference is night and day. Socialism led to great progress in both countries, leading both from backward, third-rate powers into superpowers on par with the United States. Socialism did that.

Sure, you can point out that their cars are ugly and maybe they didn't have the same luxuries as we have, but those are trivialities. Overall, they did just fine.

As for capitalist countries, there is a wide range of outcomes.
I've not claimed that all are wonderful. Only that the better
examples of capitalist countries are superior to every example
of socialist countries.

Only a few capitalist countries have done well. Most do not. When you look at a more balanced scale, even if socialist countries are less affluent than the wealthiest capitalist countries, it still balances out when you look at the huge number of "****hole countries" (as Trump called them) which are also capitalist.

This should not be read to say that capitalist countries have no flaws.
I've never claimed that at all.

I think that addresses the rest of your post.

You're still failing to acknowledge that it was restrained capitalism which led to the positives you mentioned.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you apply the same argument to capitalism? Capitalism is as capitalism does?

You're catching on!
Real world examples of countries employing systems
exhibit emergent properties. Comparing them all, we
se that some capitalist countries are great places to live,
with both economic & social liberty. No socialist ones
even compare.
This is not to say that any are all good or all bad. Only
that capitalism offers the best potential for good results.
The Scandinavian model might suit you best. I'll stay
in Ameristan....cheaper, better civil liberties, & superior
antique engine shows.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's gotta be the goatherds. Goats and cattle are clearly the root of all evil.

Socialist goats

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialist goats

But when cooked, they're a meat that's hard to beat tasty.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But when cooked, they're a meat that's hard to beat tasty.

Had curried goat at the Notting Hill Carnival once, but tbh it was slow cooked, heavily spiced, and could have been beef or mutton.

 

[Kooky]

You're catching on!
Real world examples of countries employing systems
exhibit emergent properties. Comparing them all, we
se that some capitalist countries are great places to live,
with both economic & social liberty. No socialist ones
even compare.

I don't think anybody is argueing that capitalism isn't a great system to live under if you're a capitalist.

This is not to say that any are all good or all bad. Only
that capitalism offers the best potential for good results.
The Scandinavian model might suit you best. I'll stay
in Ameristan....cheaper, better civil liberties, & superior
antique engine shows.

Say what you want, America has the best civil liberties money can buy!

 

[Revoltingest]

Had curried goat at the Notting Hill Carnival once, but tbh it was slow cooked, heavily spiced, and could have been beef or mutton.

I generally only find goat at Ethiopian restaurants.
It's stewed in butter. Need I say more?

 

[Revoltingest]

Say what you want, America has the best civil liberties money can buy!

Ameristan has civil liberty advantages over the Scandinavian
countries, eg, no military draft here. (That alone is enuf for
me to never want to live there.) Even a non-capitalist can
appreciate that.

 

[Regiomontanus]

You're catching on!
Real world examples of countries employing systems
exhibit emergent properties. Comparing them all, we
se that some capitalist countries are great places to live,
with both economic & social liberty. No socialist ones
even compare.
This is not to say that any are all good or all bad. Only
that capitalism offers the best potential for good results.
The Scandinavian model might suit you best. I'll stay
in Ameristan....cheaper, better civil liberties, & superior
antique engine shows.

The US always trying to isolate and demonize socialist countries has not been helpful in them being successful. There has never been a truly communist or socialist country really, in modern times, unfortunately.

 

[Kooky]

I'm wracking my brain, but I can't come up with a country that went socialist by itself (as opposed to having it forced upon them, like most of the countries of East Europe) and wasn't attacked by the US as a result of that - with the exception of, perhaps, the PRC, since the US didn't directly intervene in the Chinese Civil War like it did in Russia, and merely supplyied the KMT with weapons and loans.

 

[Revoltingest]

The US always trying to isolate and demonize socialist countries has not been helpful in them being successful. There has never been a truly communist or socialist country really, in modern times, unfortunately.

The US attacks, isolates, & demonizes capitalist countries too.
But to the point....if socialism always fails or becomes a totalitarian
nightmare because of Ameristan, this points to a problem more
fundamental.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

The swastika is a sacred symbol that represents "Well Being". So, can I wave swastika banners or wear a swastika shirt.

The hammer and sickle represents a regime that is responsible for more deaths than the German regime represented by the swastika and a form of Government that murdered over 100 million people as the biggest killing machine in history, and didn't get a slap on the wrist.

It continues to rob over a billion people of basic liberties and brainwash them. No, any support of Communism should be treated at least like we would treat symbolism or support of Nazis or the KKK.

The coice of what symbol to represent a sociopolitical construct is understandably not taken lightly, but sometimes falls flat on its face in terms of efficacy. By extension, one could view the world's flags as equally betraying of what lies within those lands. When symbology such as the swastika, or hammer/sickle, is elevated to a diabolical level, one is left to wonder what next will tilt the earth's axis further. Carl Jung in "Man and his Symbols" had a veiled but stinging critique of Hitler's unoriginality: "borrowing" the swastika.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The US attacks, isolates, & demonizes capitalist countries too.
But to the point....if socialism always fails or becomes a totalitarian
nightmare because of Ameristan, this points to a problem more
fundamental.

Yes the theory has always been hard into practice because it ends up with a strong man intoxicated with power.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes the theory has always been hard into practice because it ends up with a strong man intoxicated with power.

Aye, the most efficient government
can be the worst.

 

[Suave]

So the hammer and sickle of communism is supposed represent factory workers and farmers, but the vast majority of them are conservative christians, so how do the dems expect America to eventually succumb to the socialist/atheist agenda? You can fake votes but you can't fake actual labor and production.

The socialist market economy of China has improved the well being of the Chinese working class. Like how the centralized planning of the Chinese Communist Party, public ownership and state owned enterprises have improved the lives of their working class, I'm confident a ruling U.S. Democratic Socialist Party, public ownership, and state run enterprises can hereby improve the lives of the American working class people.

 

[Stevicus]

You're catching on!
Real world examples of countries employing systems
exhibit emergent properties. Comparing them all, we
se that some capitalist countries are great places to live,
with both economic & social liberty. No socialist ones
even compare.
This is not to say that any are all good or all bad. Only
that capitalism offers the best potential for good results.
The Scandinavian model might suit you best. I'll stay
in Ameristan....cheaper, better civil liberties, & superior
antique engine shows.

You appear to be assuming that it's a country's economic system - and nothing else - which makes or breaks the country. I think there are a variety of factors which contribute to the end result.

 

[Revoltingest]

You appear to be assuming that it's a country's economic system - and nothing else - which makes or breaks the country.

Have I not pointed out that capitalism exists in countries
ranging from good to bad? Alas, socialism ranges only
from bad to bad. So one is rather deterministic.

 

[Stevicus]

Have I not pointed out that capitalism exists in countries
ranging from good to bad? Alas, socialism ranges only
from bad to bad. So one is rather deterministic.

Well, maybe it's due to other reasons why some countries are good while others are bad. We might also try to define "good" and "bad," depending on what factors one would use.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, maybe it's due to other reasons why some countries are good while others are bad. We might also try to define "good" and "bad," depending on what factors one would use.

There are of course other factors. This explains
diversity of quality of capitalist countries.