• Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    3 days ago

    If you’re heavily regulated and you’re running a large public sector for critical supply and services and you’re subsidizing quality of life for the public with high taxes on the wealthy and yadda yadda yadda…

    That’s Not Real Capitalism.

    It’s not 100% free market libertarian Capitalism, I suppose, but who wants the extreme form of anything? There is no perfect economic system, certainly not Communism. Regulated Capitalism has been proven to work reasonably well—provided the regulations are smart and kept in place. Good governance is about balance and compromise; no ideological system has ever been shown to work on its own in the real world.

    All the worst ones are, too.

    Almost all of your examples are from underdeveloped, poor countries. Yes, living in a poor country does suck, but the cause is more exploitation from outside rather than Capitalism from within.

    That’s a bald faced lie.

    • China: The People’s Republic of China is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). While the economy has undergone market-based reforms and includes private ownership, the government maintains extensive control. The CCP controls all state institutions, and senior government officials are appointed by the party.
    • Cuba: The Communist Party of Cuba has held power since the 1960s. Like China, Cuba has permitted increasing levels of private enterprise in recent years while remaining a one-party authoritarian state that suppresses dissent.
    • Laos: The Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) is the only legal political party and dominates all aspects of politics. While the country has seen increased market reforms and private property, the LPRP maintains a strong grip on power, and elections are not considered free or fair.
    • North Korea: The Workers’ Party of Korea rules North Korea as a dynastic totalitarian dictatorship under the leadership of Kim Jong Un. The government maintains rigid control over the population, and elections are not free or fair.
    • Vietnam: The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is dominated by the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). Like other modern Communist states, it has implemented market-oriented economic reforms while maintaining its one-party rule. The CPV controls the electoral process, and genuine independent candidates are largely banned.
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      who wants the extreme form of anything?

      Almost all of your examples are from underdeveloped, poor countries.

      Colonized, looted, and impoverished countries. Conquered and despoiled countries.

      That’s the wages of capitalism. You’re not building a prosperous domestic state, you’re robbing your neighbors and dolling out the spoils to your minions and allies.

      China Texas: The People’s Republic of China Texas State Government is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Republican Party of Texas (GOP). While the economy has undergone market-based reforms and includes private ownership, the government maintains extensive control. The CCP GOP controls all state institutions, and senior government officials are appointed by the party.

      Okay? After Greg Abbott wins the next election, he’ll have been governor longer than Xi Jinping has been the Chinese president. Nobody seems to care.

      We can also play this game with the UK, Mexico, Japan, South Africa, Israel…

      Ruling governments can hold power for decades, sometimes even centuries, with capable leadership and popular approval.

      The fundamental difference between Abbott and Xi is that Abbott uses his power to export the wealth of his state abroad on behalf of his sponsors while impoverishing enormous swaths of his local population.

      Xi’s brought wealth back into China, developed it’s domestic industry and improved the quality of life, and raised over a hundred million of his people out of poverty.

      Abbott’s party has to fight tooth and nail to oppress his people in order to stay in power. Xi’s party enjoys enormous native popularity and broad national support.

      • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        Okay, the only thing I really care to respond to in all that is your comparison of Abbot to Xi, because it demonstrates how much you’re missing the point. Abbot keeps getting elected; Xi is functionally president for life. Learn what a dictatorship is.

        I think I’m done here. Anyone who goes as far as you have to defend despots is not someone I care to waste my time with.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          3 days ago

          Abbot keeps getting elected; Xi is functionally president for life.

          The office is the Chinese president isn’t even particularly powerful. Xi’s influence is exerted through his chairmanship of the Party and of the Military Commission, neither of which are elected positions in either China or the US. His position as president is an appointment by Congress and has functions more equivalent to our Secretary of State (another unelected US position). He holds these offices by cultivating support within the elected Congress and popularity with the general public.

          Abbott, meanwhile, secures his position as elected governor through strategic and systematic disenfranchisement, voter caging, and voter intimidation. He has mediocre public approval and is constantly, often viciously, fighting fellow members of his own party for control of government. His greatest influence comes from fundraising, which remains his forte. Unlike Xi, Abbott maintains his position as a conduit for bribery between private business and public officials.

          I think I’m done here

          Adios.