venezuela is capitalist, they have only elected a socialist lmao The majority of their workers are in private industry, while the literal definition of socialism is worker control of the means of production.
Also that site is pure propaganda, its like going to www.Iloveoil.com for facts on climate change.
They tried to do is peacefully, so the capitalists are attacking the economy like they did chile just to stay in power.
All you are is propaganda, I thought we might have a decent conversation, oh well.
You don't get to decide what's propaganda and what's not - we can't have a discussion that way. I promise I won't use it either. On Venezuela, I think you may be right actually. I think the issue with Venezuela is lack of freedom. It seems to be a dictatorship. China too has sort of a form of capitalism but limited individual freedom. So yes, capitalism is not a panacea. My contention would be however that truly free societies can only work with capitalism - which is different than to say that all capitalist societies are by definition free (with Venezuela and China as counter examples). I would however claim that all socialist/communist countries (under your definition) are not free, if by freedom we mean that individuals can (i) say what they want, (ii) go where they want, (iii) take any available job they want, ... so capitalism isn't perfect and prone to corruption, but some form of capitalism is essential for individual freedom. Now you can lay into me....
" My contention would be however that truly free societies can only work with capitalism"
capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. This private ownership was originally stolen during the enclosure acts and other acts of economic and political violence. The only way they still exist is more of the same. As the rate of profits fall and capitalism expands it is forced into monopoly and then imperalism. These are inescapable facts of the system. It can never be free because it relies on a government to exist to uphold the ruling class.
On top of that your level of freedom is equal to the amount of resources you can take from others through private ownership of capital. It is literally oppression.
Isn't labor the most important means of production? In capitalism that's privately owned, and in socialism it's owned communal. Not owning your own labor is a form of slavery to me. And why does the rate of profits fall? Do you have any data on that? The way I see it, corporate profits in the US are at crazy high levels when compared to wage growth and GDP growth. Seems that in some sense, capitalism is working too well... And I disagree with your definition of freedom (but that's OK, since it's a definition!). I think you know mine...
venezuela is capitalist, they have only elected a socialist lmao The majority of their workers are in private industry, while the literal definition of socialism is worker control of the means of production.
Also that site is pure propaganda, its like going to www.Iloveoil.com for facts on climate change.
They tried to do is peacefully, so the capitalists are attacking the economy like they did chile just to stay in power.
All you are is propaganda, I thought we might have a decent conversation, oh well.
You don't get to decide what's propaganda and what's not - we can't have a discussion that way. I promise I won't use it either. On Venezuela, I think you may be right actually. I think the issue with Venezuela is lack of freedom. It seems to be a dictatorship. China too has sort of a form of capitalism but limited individual freedom. So yes, capitalism is not a panacea. My contention would be however that truly free societies can only work with capitalism - which is different than to say that all capitalist societies are by definition free (with Venezuela and China as counter examples). I would however claim that all socialist/communist countries (under your definition) are not free, if by freedom we mean that individuals can (i) say what they want, (ii) go where they want, (iii) take any available job they want, ... so capitalism isn't perfect and prone to corruption, but some form of capitalism is essential for individual freedom. Now you can lay into me....
"It seems to be a dictatorship. "
yeah, by the rich
" My contention would be however that truly free societies can only work with capitalism"
capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. This private ownership was originally stolen during the enclosure acts and other acts of economic and political violence. The only way they still exist is more of the same. As the rate of profits fall and capitalism expands it is forced into monopoly and then imperalism. These are inescapable facts of the system. It can never be free because it relies on a government to exist to uphold the ruling class.
On top of that your level of freedom is equal to the amount of resources you can take from others through private ownership of capital. It is literally oppression.
Isn't labor the most important means of production? In capitalism that's privately owned, and in socialism it's owned communal. Not owning your own labor is a form of slavery to me. And why does the rate of profits fall? Do you have any data on that? The way I see it, corporate profits in the US are at crazy high levels when compared to wage growth and GDP growth. Seems that in some sense, capitalism is working too well... And I disagree with your definition of freedom (but that's OK, since it's a definition!). I think you know mine...