United States Imperialism

[Doug1943]

What a load of right wing crap about socialists, of course we agree about communists who were certainly not the problem in chile. MIR only resulted in military violence after the CIA coup d'etat. Allende won 36% of the vote and the similar Christian Democrats won 27%....

So these swine fascist Republicans Nixon and Kissinger gave chile a CIA coup and a military dictatorship and incredible suffering, justified by garbage propaganda about nonexistent communists... Now there is no Cold War and still Republicans have totally screwed the hell out of Venezuela and Nicaragua and of course Cuba, which is why we have so many asylum seekers at the southern border.... They did the same thing in the 50s under the Dulles brothers, genocide against native guatemalans and hondurans etcetera etcetera etcetera.... Same with covert crap and occupation of the Dominican Republic and Haiti and Mexico under Harding Coolidge Hoover.... When they weren't destroying the world economy with silly deregulation of Wall Street....

Got nuthin', huh?

 

[francoHFW]

Allende was a democrat, and his overthrow, and the bloody represion that followed, was a crime, for which the people making US foreign policy at the time bear some responsibility.

But ... if you look closely at what was happening in Chile at the time, it was NOT on a path to a social-democratic capitalism, with the support of the majority of the population.

Allende was a democrat, but he was also a serious Socialist. His problem was, he never had majority support for his policies (even though many of them were just a continuation of the policies of previous non-Socialist governments). He was elected with just 36% of the vote -- but the two non-Socialist parties had a bit less than that, and in Chile, the candidate with a plurality wins -- as had happened several times before. And he never had a majority in Congress.

The insane Far Left component of his coalition -- the Chilean equivalent of AntiFa -- didn't help, with their openly-stated goal of armed revolution and a communist state, nor did a four-week tour by an approving Fidel Castro. Nor did the assassination of a conservative politician by a far-left groupuscule.

Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of what happened:

Presidency of Salvador Allende - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Revolutionary Left Movement (Chile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Edmundo Pérez Zujovic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note to patriots: the Far Left group, the MIR ('Movement of the Revolutionary Left'}was pretty well-armed, and had something of a mass base in the slums and in certain rural areas of Chile. They even manufactured their own mortars. They fought a long guerilla resistance war against the ruling junta. But they lost.

In situations where society is deeply polarized and the normal channels of political struggle are blocked, the struggle is not WITH the army, but FOR the army.

right wing patriots my ****, brainwashed functional anti American hater twits you mean, voting against the election steal vaccine hoax global warming hoax that never happened except on crap Geo OP's propaganda outlets....

 

[francoHFW]

Got nuthin', huh?

Your article says that 63% of Chileans voted for Allende or someone just like him, whereas 34% voted for your oligarch militarist swine that Nixon and Kissinger gave power, a catastrophe for the Chileans, still trying to get over it. So give us some more imperialist oligarch propaganda about it....

 

[francoHFW]

The wonderful thing about capitalism is that the capitalists get rich by buying and selling, rather than enslaving and looting.

They do on a mass scale, what some of our distant ancestors figured out thousands of years ago ... sure, you can overwhelm a neighboring tribe, kill their men, carry off their women, and steal their stuff. But then there isn't any more stuff being produced. It's smarter, it makes you more prosperous, if you can trade with them -- you make good obsidian arrowheads, and trade with them for their stuff and their women. Then, so long as you can keep making those arrowheads, you've got a steady supply.

It took our sorry old species thousands of years from the first civilization, to get a generalized market system going. But once it did get going ... whoa, we've never looked back.

Yes, there are market failures. You'd better have a nationalize/socialist military and police. Some things are so basic that the market-competition system just doesn't apply: have nationalized/socialist roads and highways and National Parks and Symphony Orchestras and schools.

And lots of people aren't foresightful enough , at the age of 18, to start planning fifty years ahead, for when they're 68. So force them to act sensibly, by 'contributory welfare state' measures, like the Social Security system -- deducted from their wages or salaries. (In practice, Republicans would not dare to touch a hair on the head of the existing American welfare state, except when it departs too far from being a basic, short-term safety net in its non-forced-contributory aspect. Thus the 'Clinton Welfare Reforms' [ Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia ]

However, like religion, a lot of politics is performance. You pretend to believe something, you pay lip-service to it (the Free Market! Return Good for Evil! Rugged Individualism! Turn the Other Cheek!) ... but in practice, you ignore these nice ideas completely.

Actually, when you get a right wing oligarchy like GOP swine love, you get a savage capitalism that enslaves and loots, plus causes dereg bubbles and busts, like 1929, 1989, 2008....

 

[Doug1943]

Actually, when you get a right wing oligarchy like GOP swine love, you get a savage capitalism that enslaves and loots, plus causes dereg bubbles and busts, like 1929, 1989, 2008....

You're confusing something. The majority of Chileans did not, ever, support Socialism. Read the Wiki article again. There was a non-socialist party, the Christian Democrats, which did, however, support some of the same things as Allende did, such as some nationalization and land re-distribution. (The latter reform, by the way, was pushed by the American imperialists in a number of other countries, like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan after the war -- the last thing intelligent capitalists want is a landless peasantry with a few families owning everything. You don't seem to be interested in facts that contradict your beliefs, but anyone who is actually interested in the question of land reform should read the Wiki article on it, here:
[Land reforms by country - Wikipedia])

This party briefly allied with Allende's Unidad Popular alliance, but then left it. Here's the relevant part of the Wiki article:

At the beginning, there was broad support in Congress to expand the government's already large part of the economy, as the Popular Unity and Christian Democrats together had a clear majority. But the government's efforts to pursue these policies led to strong opposition by landowners, some middle-class sectors, the rightist National Party, financiers, and the Roman Catholic Church (which in 1973 was displeased with the direction of the educational policy ). Eventually the Christian Democrats united with the National Party in Congress.

I repeat: there was never a majority for genuine Socialism in Chile, either in the popular vote, or in Congress. There was a near-majority, though, which is why the situation went critical. As Trotsky said, the wires of democracy cannot carry too high a social voltage.

In fact, there has never been a majority for genuine Socialism anywhere. Communists get into power by championing national independence, land reform, etc.

If you read the Communist Manifesto (available for free download at [ Marxists Internet Archive ]) you'll see Marx and Engels praising the bourgeoisie to the skies, because they destroy the old feudal system and drag the world into modernity, developing the productive forces beyond what anyone could have dreamed of. They're quite eloquent in their praise.

Of course, they thought capitalism would soon run out of steam, and produce a highly polarized society, with wealth at one pole and misery at the other. They did not foresee that the capitalists were smart enough to permit social reforms -- many of the 'immediate demands' at the end of the Manifesto, such as the abolution of child labor.

And capitalism has continued to drive the development of the productive forces, everywhere in the world. You can find the relevant data here: [ HumanProgress ]

Of course, capitalism is far from perfect. It does indeed experience booms and busts, and, if unregulated, individual capitalists will do terrible things. It tends towards extreme inequality, because the natural inequality among people gets leveraged by those who own the means of production. That's why capitalism has been reformed and regulated everywhere.

It's the worst system in the world, except for all the others.

 

[Flopper]

We should have taken Patton's advice and dropped q couple more "fat man" bombs on Moscow and Stalingrad after Japan surrendered. But Truman was too much of a ***** to order that. Imagine how communism could've been stopped when the Soviets saw we weren't ******* around. Putin tries his shit you can all but guarantee that Trident and Minuteman missiles will be lobbed at him.

Knee jerk reactions which is what you're suggesting rarely turns out well on the global stage. A nuclear attack on Russia would certain not have ended the communist movement, if anything it would make it stronger. If we had attacked Russia who was an ally at the time, it would have been seen by Russia and the world as an unprovoked secret attack. The immediate results would be:

• What was left of the Russian government would assume a state of war exist between the US and Russia. The 300,000 Russian troops in East Germany, energized by the attack like the US was after Pearl Harbor would rapid overrun American forces in Germany who were in the process of mobilizing to return to the US and become a peacekeeping force in Germany.
• Truman would be unable to justify an unprovoked attack on Russia and would be impeached.
• WWII would continue without Britain and France

The US would have established that nuclear weapons are acceptable in combat and today nations that have them would be using them. And nation that did not have them would be working very hard to get them so they could use them. A real possibility would exist that most of the planet would be a nuclear waste pile.

 

[francoHFW]

You're confusing something. The majority of Chileans did not, ever, support Socialism. Read the Wiki article again. There was a non-socialist party, the Christian Democrats, which did, however, support some of the same things as Allende did, such as some nationalization and land re-distribution. (The latter reform, by the way, was pushed by the American imperialists in a number of other countries, like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan after the war -- the last thing intelligent capitalists want is a landless peasantry with a few families owning everything. You don't seem to be interested in facts that contradict your beliefs, but anyone who is actually interested in the question of land reform should read the Wiki article on it, here:
[Land reforms by country - Wikipedia])

This party briefly allied with Allende's Unidad Popular alliance, but then left it. Here's the relevant part of the Wiki article:



I repeat: there was never a majority for genuine Socialism in Chile, either in the popular vote, or in Congress. There was a near-majority, though, which is why the situation went critical. As Trotsky said, the wires of democracy cannot carry too high a social voltage.

In fact, there has never been a majority for genuine Socialism anywhere. Communists get into power by championing national independence, land reform, etc.

If you read the Communist Manifesto (available for free download at [ Marxists Internet Archive ]) you'll see Marx and Engels praising the bourgeoisie to the skies, because they destroy the old feudal system and drag the world into modernity, developing the productive forces beyond what anyone could have dreamed of. They're quite eloquent in their praise.

Of course, they thought capitalism would soon run out of steam, and produce a highly polarized society, with wealth at one pole and misery at the other. They did not foresee that the capitalists were smart enough to permit social reforms -- many of the 'immediate demands' at the end of the Manifesto, such as the abolution of child labor.

And capitalism has continued to drive the development of the productive forces, everywhere in the world. You can find the relevant data here: [ HumanProgress ]

Of course, capitalism is far from perfect. It does indeed experience booms and busts, and, if unregulated, individual capitalists will do terrible things. It tends towards extreme inequality, because the natural inequality among people gets leveraged by those who own the means of production. That's why capitalism has been reformed and regulated everywhere.

It's the worst system in the world, except for all the others.

Screw the communist manifesto and anyone who confuses socialism and communism. Socialism is always democratic, communism is always a dictatorship that owns all business and industry. A disgrace. Socialism works, communism doesn't. Allende and the Christian Democrats were all socialists. Every democracy ever that has had socialist parties knows because they are always democratic, they are just for fair capitalism with a good safety net.

 

[AZrailwhale]

When Obama promoted health care reform, conservatives criticized it as intolerable to the U.S. economy, capable of crushing the country. The USSR had free health care, free higher education, free housing, first-rate science, a powerful military and the second most powerful economy on earth, and no such vile phenomenon of capitalism as unemployment.
But the richest capitalist country, of course, could not and can not afford such a thing... Oh yes!
Of course it can't, because capitalists need the unemployed, the homeless, illiterate and the hungry. Without them, their fat asses and their stinking system cannot exist. Neither economically nor politically.

Boy you have an active imagination. Free health care? Sure with water in medicine bottles instead of medicine and drunken doctors.
Free high education? Yeah with higher level students being sent to Western universities instead of Soviet ones. Free housing? Sure in concrete tenements with walls you could crumble with your fingers and party monitors to snitch on you. A economy that couldn’t feed itself without buying millions of tons of wheat from the USA every year, that wasn’t able to provide consumer goods for its own citizenry, and that couldn’t match western industrial innovation in any field. The USSR was a third world country with a second world military. It never produced any equipment that matched Western equipment in quality or performance. The military depended on warrant and commissioned officers to do the minor maintenance that corporals and sergeants did in western armies. Privates and NCOs who weren’t trained to read a simple map. An army where troops were allowed, and even encouraged, to brutalize less senior privates and NCOs were sixty day wonders who were only slightly more qualified than the privates they brutalized and stole from. Tell us more about the “powerful” military the USSR had,

 

[francoHFW]

You're confusing something. The majority of Chileans did not, ever, support Socialism. Read the Wiki article again. There was a non-socialist party, the Christian Democrats, which did, however, support some of the same things as Allende did, such as some nationalization and land re-distribution. (The latter reform, by the way, was pushed by the American imperialists in a number of other countries, like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan after the war -- the last thing intelligent capitalists want is a landless peasantry with a few families owning everything. You don't seem to be interested in facts that contradict your beliefs, but anyone who is actually interested in the question of land reform should read the Wiki article on it, here:
[Land reforms by country - Wikipedia])

This party briefly allied with Allende's Unidad Popular alliance, but then left it. Here's the relevant part of the Wiki article:



I repeat: there was never a majority for genuine Socialism in Chile, either in the popular vote, or in Congress. There was a near-majority, though, which is why the situation went critical. As Trotsky said, the wires of democracy cannot carry too high a social voltage.

In fact, there has never been a majority for genuine Socialism anywhere. Communists get into power by championing national independence, land reform, etc.

If you read the Communist Manifesto (available for free download at [ Marxists Internet Archive ]) you'll see Marx and Engels praising the bourgeoisie to the skies, because they destroy the old feudal system and drag the world into modernity, developing the productive forces beyond what anyone could have dreamed of. They're quite eloquent in their praise.

Of course, they thought capitalism would soon run out of steam, and produce a highly polarized society, with wealth at one pole and misery at the other. They did not foresee that the capitalists were smart enough to permit social reforms -- many of the 'immediate demands' at the end of the Manifesto, such as the abolution of child labor.

And capitalism has continued to drive the development of the productive forces, everywhere in the world. You can find the relevant data here: [ HumanProgress ]

Of course, capitalism is far from perfect. It does indeed experience booms and busts, and, if unregulated, individual capitalists will do terrible things. It tends towards extreme inequality, because the natural inequality among people gets leveraged by those who own the means of production. That's why capitalism has been reformed and regulated everywhere.

It's the worst system in the world, except for all the others.

The United states is the only modern country that isn't socialist. The English speaking countries have to call it something different like Labor Party or Social Democrat, anything but socialist which has been totally ruined as a term period... France Germany Italy Russia every other country has had socialists and communist parties at the same time, and the difference is democracy. The communist parties never will win and they disappeared along with the USSR and its support.

 

[Flopper]

The United states is the only modern country that isn't socialist. The English speaking countries have to call it something different like Labor Party or Social Democrat, anything but socialist which has been totally ruined as a term period... France Germany Italy Russia every other country has had socialists and communist parties at the same time, and the difference is democracy. The communist parties never will win and they disappeared along with the USSR and its support.

There is no criteria or official process for being named a socialist state. If being socialist means providing services at government expense to those who can't provide for themselves or establishing some minimum level of government support to all, then essentially all but the most poorest nations are socialist.

Some of the most capitalist' nations on earth are also some most socialist. China is a good example. It has a booming capitalist sector along side large socialist sector. Singapore is recognized as one of the most capitalist countries on earth yet it is described as a socialist democracy. It has free education, free healthcare and better social security system than the US.

Most countries are not socialistic or capitalistic. They are both. As one leader in China said, :we tolerate the capitalists because they provide the wealth we need to provide for the needs of the people.

 

[francoHFW]

There is no criteria or official process for being named a socialist state. If being socialist means providing services at government expense to those who can't provide for themselves or establishing some minimum level of government support to all, then essentially all but the most poorest nations are socialist.

Some of the most capitalist' nations on earth are also some most socialist. China is a good example. It has a booming capitalist sector along side large socialist sector. Singapore is recognized as one of the most capitalist countries on earth yet it is described as a socialist democracy. It has free education, free healthcare and better social security system than the US.

Most countries are not socialistic or capitalistic. They are both.

Like all English speakers, you have no clue. Ask a socialist for Christ sake. I call myself a French socialist, they have had a Socialist Party in control and they know what socialism is so does every other country that doesn't speak English brainwash... Socialism as in every Socialist Party ever in every democracy ever means always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. We are all socialists now!, said the president of Finland when Obamacare passed period of course he didn't realize the GOP wouldn't let it go that easy. The Socialist Party in the UK and the USA disappeared during World War One because they were against it. Eugene debs the American socialist presidential candidate was thrown in jail for three years. The French socialist leader was assassinated.

 

[francoHFW]

You're confusing something. The majority of Chileans did not, ever, support Socialism. Read the Wiki article again. There was a non-socialist party, the Christian Democrats, which did, however, support some of the same things as Allende did, such as some nationalization and land re-distribution. (The latter reform, by the way, was pushed by the American imperialists in a number of other countries, like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan after the war -- the last thing intelligent capitalists want is a landless peasantry with a few families owning everything. You don't seem to be interested in facts that contradict your beliefs, but anyone who is actually interested in the question of land reform should read the Wiki article on it, here:
[Land reforms by country - Wikipedia])

This party briefly allied with Allende's Unidad Popular alliance, but then left it. Here's the relevant part of the Wiki article:



I repeat: there was never a majority for genuine Socialism in Chile, either in the popular vote, or in Congress. There was a near-majority, though, which is why the situation went critical. As Trotsky said, the wires of democracy cannot carry too high a social voltage.

In fact, there has never been a majority for genuine Socialism anywhere. Communists get into power by championing national independence, land reform, etc.

If you read the Communist Manifesto (available for free download at [ Marxists Internet Archive ]) you'll see Marx and Engels praising the bourgeoisie to the skies, because they destroy the old feudal system and drag the world into modernity, developing the productive forces beyond what anyone could have dreamed of. They're quite eloquent in their praise.

Of course, they thought capitalism would soon run out of steam, and produce a highly polarized society, with wealth at one pole and misery at the other. They did not foresee that the capitalists were smart enough to permit social reforms -- many of the 'immediate demands' at the end of the Manifesto, such as the abolution of child labor.

And capitalism has continued to drive the development of the productive forces, everywhere in the world. You can find the relevant data here: [ HumanProgress ]

Of course, capitalism is far from perfect. It does indeed experience booms and busts, and, if unregulated, individual capitalists will do terrible things. It tends towards extreme inequality, because the natural inequality among people gets leveraged by those who own the means of production. That's why capitalism has been reformed and regulated everywhere.

It's the worst system in the world, except for all the others.

Socialists are for democracy, communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry, and communism has never been produced in a country without a violent revolution. Nobody ever voted a communist country in.

 

[francoHFW]

There is no criteria or official process for being named a socialist state. If being socialist means providing services at government expense to those who can't provide for themselves or establishing some minimum level of government support to all, then essentially all but the most poorest nations are socialist.

Some of the most capitalist' nations on earth are also some most socialist. China is a good example. It has a booming capitalist sector along side large socialist sector. Singapore is recognized as one of the most capitalist countries on earth yet it is described as a socialist democracy. It has free education, free healthcare and better social security system than the US.

Most countries are not socialistic or capitalistic. They are both. As one leader in China said, :we tolerate the capitalists because they provide the wealth we need to provide for the needs of the people.

You just can't get away from the fact that you believe socialism is evil and not capitalism when actually it is just fair capitalism with a good safety net and always democratic. Only the United states is not socialist in the modern world, it's a huge giveaway to the rich and a screw job for everyone else. Thanks Ronnie ray gun

 

[Flopper]

You just can't get away from the fact that you believe socialism is evil and not capitalism when actually it is just fair capitalism with a good safety net and always democratic. Only the United states is not socialist in the modern world, it's a huge giveaway to the rich and a screw job for everyone else. Thanks Ronnie ray gun

I certainly have nothing against capitalism. It is the source of my wealth as well as many millions of other America. We can't have socialism without capitalism. Russia tried that and failed miserably. Capitalism without socialism will destroy itself and if it doesn't the people will. Regulated capitalism can be the best of both world. The trick is to properly regulate so we don't destroy all incentive to grow a business while providing social programs the people need. Socialism or Capitalism can not be an either or choice. That simply will not work.

 

[Doug1943]

The United states is the only modern country that isn't socialist. The English speaking countries have to call it something different like Labor Party or Social Democrat, anything but socialist which has been totally ruined as a term period... France Germany Italy Russia every other country has had socialists and communist parties at the same time, and the difference is democracy. The communist parties never will win and they disappeared along with the USSR and its support.

Yes, you're right. The American working class never developed the sort of class consciousness that European workers did. Why this is so has long been an academic issue. The main explanation is American prosperity. To quote one famous paper, "socialism was wrecked on shoals of roast beef and apple pie."

I believe that while the above is basically true, it's also true that the ethnic diversity of the American working class also played a big role. There were employers who deliberately hired immigrant workers from many different countries, in order to prevent them from uniting in a union. And it's absolutely true that ethnic consciousness is far more powerful than class consciousness: any country that has serious ethnic/tribal divisions -- with the exception of Switzerland -- sees politics divide along ethnic, not economic, lines.

I don't understand what you mean by saying the US is the only country which isn't socialist, and then seem to say that being 'socialist' means having socialist and communist parties. It's certainly true that the welfare state is less developed in the US than in other advanced countries -- is that what you mean by 'socialism'?

You are right that the difference between the socialist/social-democratic parties, on the one hand, and the Communist parties, on the other, was their attitude towards democracy. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union (and even earlier in countries like Italy), the Communist Parties have become basically reformist social-democratic parties. Although, interestingly, where they had a mass base in the industrial proletariat, and lost it, as in France, many of their working class supporters switched to supporting the far Right!

The Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was one of the two great tragedies of the 20th Century, along with the victory of National Socialism in Germany in 1933. It diverted a large section of the Socialist movement -- a basically democratic movement -- into supporting totalitarianism, and gained the allegiance of many idealistic people.

It captured a large part of the anti-colonial/modernization movement in the Third World, causing the US to oppose these movements since they appeared to part of the "world Communist conspiracy".

You can argue that had the Russian Revolution [ the Bolshevik seizure of power] not happened, Russia and China would today be advanced democracies (although perhaps not so 'liberal', more like Singapore). There is an argument among German historians -- called the 'Historikerstreit' -- over German guilt for Nazi-ism, which includes the assertion that the Hitler movement was propelled mainly by fear of Communism and the Soviet Union.
[ Historikerstreit - Wikipedia ]

Anyway, genuine socialism -- the nationalization of the economy and its direction under a national plan -- is dead. The argument now is over how to take sharp edges off of capitalism. If by 'socialism' you mean various welfare-state reforms, like Social Security and Medicare, than, to quote a famous British Tory, "We're all socialists now." (Okay, there is a small but intellectually-significant group of people who remain devoted to the pure free market -- our side's equivalent of your sides fundamentalist Marxists. It makes life more interesting to have such people around.)

 

[Doug1943]

You just can't get away from the fact that you believe socialism is evil and not capitalism when actually it is just fair capitalism with a good safety net and always democratic. Only the United states is not socialist in the modern world, it's a huge giveaway to the rich and a screw job for everyone else. Thanks Ronnie ray gun

If by 'socialism' then you mean 'capitalism with significant welfare state measures', then you're right. Most conspicuously, the US lacks a national health care system, at least for its non-poor pre-retirement population.

I don't believe 'socialism is evil'. (We're talking about genuine, full, total socialism here.) I believe that it is grossly economically inefficient, and that this would be true, even if it were implemented in a fully democratic country.

Socialists themselves were often very good idealistic people -- read Ray Ginger's biography of Eugene Debs, The Bending Cross. Debs was a secular saint.

(He was given a ten-year prison sentence by the liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson, for urging young men to resist the draft when we entered WWI. Most such people in other countries were pardoned after the war, but the vindictive Wilson kept Debs in prison. It was up to a Republican President, Warren G Harding, to pardon Debs by commuting his sentence, and even to invite him to the White House for a chat! Oh, those vicious conservative Republicans, and those kind gentle liberal Democrats!)
[ Eugene V. Debs - Wikipedia ]
[ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/01/06/warren-harding-eugene-debs/ ] (I know that few people read the things linked to, but the WaPo article is really very interesting and well worth reading.)

There is an interesting book on this issue, by a Canadian immigrant, who is now an American citizen, an academic named Francis Buckley. (No relation to the late William.) It's called The Republican Workers Party -- Why Trump Was Just What We Needed. In it, he argues for the transformation of the Republican Party into something like the European conservative parties, the Christian Democrats.

I happen to agree with him, but I doubt it will happen.

However, notional adherence to a free market among conservatives, is like the notional adherence among Christians to the ethics of Jesus: pious devotion in theory, completely ignored in practice.

So it's just possible that Mr Trump might have a brainstorm and come out for some version of national health care -- 'TrumpCare', perhaps the extension of Medicare to everyone -- and then the conservative base would applaud it and the Republican politicians would be forced to accept it, just as they have accepted all the other welfare state measures pioneered by Democrats.

[ Eisenhower approves expanded Social Security coverage, Sept. 1, 1954 ]

As President Eistenhower said,

"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

[ https://www.ontheissues.orgCeleb/Dwight_Eisenhower_Social_Security.htm ]

 

[Kruska]

There is no criteria or official process for being named a socialist state.

Not quite correct e.g. in regards to e.g. Europe or e.g. China

Basically the term socialist state - refers to countries where (government) involvement in the economic private sector is strongly involved - and/or where a communist party with a communist agenda is ruling or in coalition, but the country is regarded to be a democratic country (e.g. via a democratic election process) It has actually not much to do with being social in regards to the weak parts of a society.
Germany's government had large stakes and even controlled big chunks of it's economy via state held companies - most prominent the Railway's and the Postal and Telecommunication services. Which were privatized in the 90's. However West-Germany and todays Germany never had a communist party government or coalition and therefore was never regarded as being a Socialist State - but simply a democratic country that pays high attention towards social issues.

In France the government held huge stakes and control in the private economic sector - even though also privatizing much of it in the 90's - it still holds stakes in the private economy.
France therefore at times was clearly a socialist state, having also been ruled by a democratically elected coalition of the socialist and communist party.

China has by name a CPC - communist ruling party - though it's economic practice is predominantly capitalistic - and allows for private property the majority of it's economy is state controlled.
By definition/criteria China is clearly a Socialist State, since there are no free elections it is simply being refereed to as being a communist ruled country.

 

[Kruska]

It's the worst system in the world, except for all the others.

From what I have observed so far - the Chinese developed Socialist System is more suitable, especially for a large and populous country. It is only in existence since 30 years and will "hopefully" keep on further developing/evolving. It partially derives from the Singapore system - which however isn't feasible/can't be just mirrored onto a country the size and complexity of China.

 

[Ringo]

The wonderful thing about capitalism is that the capitalists get rich by buying and selling, rather than enslaving and looting.

What does this statement mean? Is it arrogance or stupidity? Or was slavery, the genocide of Hindus, Africans, and Chinese, not capitalism? Capitalism is profit. At any cost.
If profit comes from selling underpants, they will sell underpants, if they sell people or drugs. the capitalist will sell people and drugs. And justify it with noble ideals.

 

[Doug1943]

From what I have observed so far - the Chinese developed Socialist System is more suitable, especially for a large and populous country. It is only in existence since 30 years and will "hopefully" keep on further developing/evolving. It partially derives from the Singapore system - which however isn't feasible/can't be just mirrored onto a country the size and complexity of China.

The great fear in China is returning to a system where every region was ruled by a warlord, and foreigners could take bites out of the country because there was no national unity. The Chinese are the most civilized people on earth, and will be the dominant nation of humanity by the end of the century, assuming we do not destroy ourselves in a big stupid war.

How their political system will evolve is anyone's guess. But a system that was, perhaps, a necessity in a nation of hundreds of millions of illiterate peasants, where the main task was to drag them into modernity, is unlikely to be a good fit for a nation of highly-intelligent, well-educated, urbanized people, integrated into today's globalized world.

We must be patient. It will be a matter of decades, of generations.

What does this statement mean? Is it arrogance or stupidity? Or was slavery, the genocide of Hindus, Africans, and Chinese, not capitalism? Capitalism is profit. At any cost.
If profit comes from selling underpants, they will sell underpants, if they sell people or drugs. the capitalist will sell people and drugs. And justify it with noble ideals.

Let's assume it's both arrogance and stupidity.

When we're analyzing social systems, we have to look first of all at their main features, their dominant characteristics, driven by material factors.

In pre-capitalist societies, most of the production was from the land. There was some small-scale production of things, mainly by hand, and there was trade, but it was at the margins of the economy. The ruling class were the landowners, and those who worked the land were their slaves or, later, semi-slaves ('serfs'). And their state prospered by acquiring more land, ie by foreign conquest.

The forces of production hardly grew at all from one century to the next. The life of the average person in the 13th Century differed little from that of his ancestors a thousand years earlier.

And then ... along came capitalism. And everything changed. The forces of production grew enormously, and the whole world was drawn in to the system-- including the barbarian and semi-barbarian nations, making them dependent on the civilized ones. .

You mention the 'genocide' of various foreign peoples -- I would quarrel with the word 'genocide', but that's just a technicality. Yes, they killed people. And the people they killed, killed people. And the European capitalists killed each other's people. And the American capitalists and the Southern slavocracy killed each other's people. And the new Communist states, trying to implement socialism, killed people. Nothing new here.

It's not that the capitalists and their state are nice people. Far from it -- in history, there are no nice people. It's the objective result of what they do, compared to all previous ruling classes and their states and their societies: they push mankind forward, away from the Kingdom of Necessity, towards the Kingdom of Freedom.

Will that Kingdom of Freedom still be 'capitalist' in any recognizable sense? I have no idea. The full development of AI, the development of new sources of clean cheap energy, getting control of our own genome --- and discoveries that we cannot even imagine now --- may result in a qualitatively different sort of human being, and a social and economic system as different from capitalism as capitalism was from the societies it replaced.

But a necessary step on the path to such a society was the development of capitalism.