Look at the variety of capitalist countries and how they differ, knowing what “capitalism” is helps you to understand which aspects of them relate to that and which aspects of them are political, cultural, social. I could easily point to terrible capitalist countries and say it just doesn’t work, but there are degrees aren’t there?
Also consider that democracy was tried, reverted to Empire, then wasn’t tried again for over 1000 years. France tried it, reverted to Empire, then tried it again. In those gaps your argument would be used to deny attempting democracy.
Knowing what “socialism” means would help you to understand how it has been, hasn’t been, and can be implemented. But you’re drooling on yourself repeating things you’ve heard like “but I like my toothbrush”
You’re doing yourself a disservice, and at least have the decency to keep your regurgitated opinions to yourself.
There is quite a difference between democracy and socialism. For example, while democracy did not work in France, there were several other countries that have proven democracy works. For example, Greece, Rome, or even United States. On the contrary, socialism has been in many countries and failed every single time, no matter the situation. Countries of Warsaw pact tried it and 30 years after it collapsed, the quality of life in these countries is still worse compared to the Western Europe. Similar with countries such as Israel, India, Great Britain, North Korea and many more that have tried socialist tendencies but eventually returned to capitalist economies.
Same for capitalism, there have been countries that became quite successful thanks to it such as Switzerland, Singapore or Ireland.
So you’re judging historical democracies by their peaks and successes but you’re judging socialist/communist countries by their low points and failures.
Russia went from a serfdom to a world superpower. It challenged the United States for decades despite losing millions of its population and being absolutely devastated in world war 2 whereas the USA was relatively unscathed.
These aren’t good faith arguments. You make every argument working from your conclusion backwards.
What exactly am I not getting about socialist economy?
The ones who disagree with socialism are usually told they just don’t understand it & that it has not been tried.
Reality is, it’s been tried and it always failed.
there’s another slogan…
Look at the variety of capitalist countries and how they differ, knowing what “capitalism” is helps you to understand which aspects of them relate to that and which aspects of them are political, cultural, social. I could easily point to terrible capitalist countries and say it just doesn’t work, but there are degrees aren’t there?
Also consider that democracy was tried, reverted to Empire, then wasn’t tried again for over 1000 years. France tried it, reverted to Empire, then tried it again. In those gaps your argument would be used to deny attempting democracy.
Knowing what “socialism” means would help you to understand how it has been, hasn’t been, and can be implemented. But you’re drooling on yourself repeating things you’ve heard like “but I like my toothbrush”
You’re doing yourself a disservice, and at least have the decency to keep your regurgitated opinions to yourself.
There is quite a difference between democracy and socialism. For example, while democracy did not work in France, there were several other countries that have proven democracy works. For example, Greece, Rome, or even United States. On the contrary, socialism has been in many countries and failed every single time, no matter the situation. Countries of Warsaw pact tried it and 30 years after it collapsed, the quality of life in these countries is still worse compared to the Western Europe. Similar with countries such as Israel, India, Great Britain, North Korea and many more that have tried socialist tendencies but eventually returned to capitalist economies.
Same for capitalism, there have been countries that became quite successful thanks to it such as Switzerland, Singapore or Ireland.
So you’re judging historical democracies by their peaks and successes but you’re judging socialist/communist countries by their low points and failures.
Russia went from a serfdom to a world superpower. It challenged the United States for decades despite losing millions of its population and being absolutely devastated in world war 2 whereas the USA was relatively unscathed.
These aren’t good faith arguments. You make every argument working from your conclusion backwards.