Socialism v.s. Capitalism - Which one is better and why?

[Dominioan]

Democratic Socialism is probably the most viable form of socialism, revolutionary socialism has not really worked so far.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Democratic Socialism is probably the most viable form of socialism, revolutionary socialism has not really worked so far.

This again? I'd make a long comment about the Zapatistas and revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune and Operation Condor but I've already done that quite a few times in this thread so I'm just gonna mention these things and tell you you're wrong.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Democratic Socialism is probably the most viable form of socialism, revolutionary socialism has not really worked so far.

This again? I'd make a long comment about the Zapatistas and revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune and Operation Condor but I've already done that quite a few times in this thread so I'm just gonna mention these things and tell you you're wrong.

You have to admit that revolutionary socialism has a nasty habit of getting militarily crushed because of the "revolutionary" part.

[Cisairse]

Democratic Socialism is probably the most viable form of socialism, revolutionary socialism has not really worked so far.

Revolutionary socialism is literally the only form of socialism that has ever been successful

[The Emerald Legion]

Democratic Socialism is probably the most viable form of socialism, revolutionary socialism has not really worked so far.

Revolutionary socialism is literally the only form of socialism that has ever been successful

If by successful you mean 'has utterly failed in every possible metric.' then you have a very strange definition of success.

[Cisairse]

Revolutionary socialism is literally the only form of socialism that has ever been successful

If by successful you mean 'has utterly failed in every possible metric.' then you have a very strange definition of success.

I don't mean that, because revolutionary socialism has been quite successful in several instances.

Obviously not as many as I would like. But several.

Whereas reformist socialism has never been successful anywhere, in any place, at any point in time.

[The Emerald Legion]

If by successful you mean 'has utterly failed in every possible metric.' then you have a very strange definition of success.

I don't mean that, because revolutionary socialism has been quite successful in several instances.

Obviously not as many as I would like. But several.

Whereas reformist socialism has never been successful anywhere, in any place, at any point in time.

No it hasn't. Revolutionary socialism always turns into Autocracy.

[Fortisinunum]

Both structures are somewhat erroneous: Socialism is something that seems like it could strip itself up at some point, but seems to me the more cogent of going about things. Capitalism has better structure, but can lead to a colossal expanse of inequality.

In my opinion, a fusion of the two is desirable, something like the Nordic Model or China (although they have tripped themselves up in the past) could work. I'd go for the Nordic model.

[Cisairse]

I don't mean that, because revolutionary socialism has been quite successful in several instances.

Obviously not as many as I would like. But several.

Whereas reformist socialism has never been successful anywhere, in any place, at any point in time.

No it hasn't. Revolutionary socialism always turns into Autocracy.

Do you want me to pull up examples of your incorrectness, or can I trust you to google it yourself?

[FutureAmerica]

Nations that balance the two seem to thrive. China has proven you can't have one without the other.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Nations that balance the two seem to thrive. China has proven you can't have one without the other.

Proven?

[Fortisinunum]

Nations that balance the two seem to thrive. China has proven you can't have one without the other.

Actually China's system is not as socialist nowadays as people would have it. It is fairly free market, give or take some tariffs. I concur, nevertheless, that mixed economies thrive better, balancing structure and equality.

[Duvniask]

Nations that balance the two seem to thrive. China has proven you can't have one without the other.

Nations that balance the two seem to thrive. China has proven you can't have one without the other.

Actually China's system is not as socialist nowadays as people would have it. It is fairly free market, give or take some tariffs. I concur, nevertheless, that mixed economies thrive better, balancing structure and equality.

Your ideas of mixed economies are completely misnomers. Nothing is being "mixed", it's just capitalism with varying degrees of state mediation.

[Dominioan]

Democratic Socialism is probably the most viable form of socialism, revolutionary socialism has not really worked so far.

This again? I'd make a long comment about the Zapatistas and revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune and Operation Condor but I've already done that quite a few times in this thread so I'm just gonna mention these things and tell you you're wrong.

Okay, but the larger the scale of it, the worse it gets. It functions perfectly in tiny areas, making small little areas of peace. Catalonia, I will admit, was an example of revolutionaries succeeding. But we also see in areas like the Soviet Union, the process of the revolution was hijacked by someone/some people who wanted to have absolute power. This can easily happen in a revolution.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

This again? I'd make a long comment about the Zapatistas and revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune and Operation Condor but I've already done that quite a few times in this thread so I'm just gonna mention these things and tell you you're wrong.

Okay, but the larger the scale of it, the worse it gets. It functions perfectly in tiny areas, making small little areas of peace. Catalonia, I will admit, was an example of revolutionaries succeeding. But we also see in areas like the Soviet Union, the process of the revolution was hijacked by someone/some people who wanted to have absolute power. This can easily happen in a revolution.

The Bolshevists from the start espoused authoritarian leftism. To lump together anarchism/anarcho-communism with authoritarian leftism is the same as lumping together fascism and lassiez-faire libertarianism.

[Alcala-Cordel]

This again? I'd make a long comment about the Zapatistas and revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune and Operation Condor but I've already done that quite a few times in this thread so I'm just gonna mention these things and tell you you're wrong.

Okay, but the larger the scale of it, the worse it gets. It functions perfectly in tiny areas, making small little areas of peace. Catalonia, I will admit, was an example of revolutionaries succeeding. But we also see in areas like the Soviet Union, the process of the revolution was hijacked by someone/some people who wanted to have absolute power. This can easily happen in a revolution.

Something something that's why it needs to be decentralized and also none of these other places were founded as states blah blah communism is stateless I'm tired of having this argument repeatedly

[Shanghai industrial complex]

'The Communist Party of China is communist' says US Department of State in major investigative breakthrough.
Well, now CCP is Marxist-Leninist regime certified by the US government. I think it can also be called socialism

[Cisairse]

'The Communist Party of China is communist' says US Department of State in major investigative breakthrough.
Well, now CCP is Marxist-Leninist regime certified by the US government. I think it can also be called socialism

This is hilariously inaccurate.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

'The Communist Party of China is communist' says US Department of State in major investigative breakthrough.
Well, now CCP is Marxist-Leninist regime certified by the US government. I think it can also be called socialism

This is hilariously inaccurate.

You don't need reply to me in multiple threads for the same thing.I just think it's ironic to combine pompeio's speeches in recent months.