Could you provide an example of a fully functional and prosperous capitalist society that doesn’t have some form of socialism embedded into its socioeconomic fabric?
No. Bust I’m not claiming such a thing exists either.
… actually there’s probably forms of Distributism, that might. Just depends on whether we’re talking classic Communism with a one party centrally planned command economy (which is how a lot of people interpret the term still).
Communism is just too broad an idea to agree to blindly, it could be referring to anything from a small scale communal farming co-op to a one party Authoritarian system.
You’ll have to be more specific.
I don’t see where that claims anything about the purity of any given system. In fact, all it does is ask for “What definition of communism are you using?”
I said capitalism is at least better than communism. Everything else is words written for me.
To be precise, you demanded an example of a ‘pure’ system that the original commenter made no pretensions of supporting, and when called out, you objected that you weren’t the one claiming that such a system existed, implying that the other commenter was (which is demonstrably untrue).
My fault for using the wrong term. I didn’t mean pure as in: solitary unto itself. But as people tend to say communism is better than capitalism or what have you-
They never specify “communism + (other form of government) either.
My original point is: Communism isn’t automatically good just because capitalism isn’t. And as predicted, the discussion exploded into a series of me defending points I never made, as a result of moved goalposts and rhetoric. (Not from you per-se, but I knew the moment I responded to the original post, I would be defending f stupid shit all day).
Ok, but that seems like a non sequitur. I don’t understand how your metaphor is supposed to help translate “[capitalism] beats communism any day of the week” into “communism isn’t automatically good because capitalism isn’t”. Those are two completely different statements.
I think it would help me if you connected the dots more when you write things.
Person A thinks capitalism sucks because it has traffic, over saturated consumerism, and healthcare for profit.
Person B thinks that communism has most of those things as well, and makes a point to insinuate that capitalism, while having those problems- is still better than communism when communism has very few examples of actually being any better.
To further explain-
Complaining about something while offering little to remedy the complaint is pointless. Therefore, I simply offered a counter argument that was at least productive.
No. Bust I’m not claiming such a thing exists either.
You made that comment in response to:
I don’t see where that claims anything about the purity of any given system. In fact, all it does is ask for “What definition of communism are you using?”
I said capitalism is at least better than communism. Everything else is words written for me.
To be precise, you demanded an example of a ‘pure’ system that the original commenter made no pretensions of supporting, and when called out, you objected that you weren’t the one claiming that such a system existed, implying that the other commenter was (which is demonstrably untrue).
My fault for using the wrong term. I didn’t mean pure as in: solitary unto itself. But as people tend to say communism is better than capitalism or what have you-
They never specify “communism + (other form of government) either.
My original point is: Communism isn’t automatically good just because capitalism isn’t. And as predicted, the discussion exploded into a series of me defending points I never made, as a result of moved goalposts and rhetoric. (Not from you per-se, but I knew the moment I responded to the original post, I would be defending f stupid shit all day).
I absolutely did not get that meaning from your comment at the top of this thread, which was:
Every shitty neighborhood has that one house that’s juuuuusst a bit less shitty than the rest.
But it’s still shitty.
Ok, but that seems like a non sequitur. I don’t understand how your metaphor is supposed to help translate “[capitalism] beats communism any day of the week” into “communism isn’t automatically good because capitalism isn’t”. Those are two completely different statements.
I think it would help me if you connected the dots more when you write things.
I was being sarcastic.
Meaning:
Person A thinks capitalism sucks because it has traffic, over saturated consumerism, and healthcare for profit.
Person B thinks that communism has most of those things as well, and makes a point to insinuate that capitalism, while having those problems- is still better than communism when communism has very few examples of actually being any better.
To further explain-
Complaining about something while offering little to remedy the complaint is pointless. Therefore, I simply offered a counter argument that was at least productive.