Capitalism VS Socialism for Dummies

What transformation???

Pure socialism does not require government control. Much like pure capitalism.

But then again you think what’s happening in Venezuela is due to socialism and not corruption

Abject poverty in the old Soviet Union. What do you define as abject? Is that an objective term?

Yep…………

Cool. What’s you basis for believing that since the death of Chavez and the collapse of the government controlled institutions he controlled , socialism and not corruption is the cause?

Abject poverty is appropriate for what we are seeing in North Korea and where Venezuela is headed. Might be a little strong for the old Soviet Union and Cuba.

That makes more sense. Ok so let’s look at Venezuela. Do you see any difference in the way the country is run between Chavez and Maduro?

You are still missing the point entirely. Nationalizing whole industries is socialism, plain and simple. That was the beginning of the end. Everything that followed was symptomatic of the Government takeover.

One can make the case that she was able to market herself better than other pretty blonds of similar ilk. This in turn increased the market demand for the product she is putting out. One can make the same case for sports talk show hosts. I’m sure there are other people in that industry who work just as hard as Chris “Mad Dog” Russo but don’t make near the same money.

Irrelevant. The problem began with the wholesale government takeover of major industries. It all went downhill from there.

Why is everyone obsessing about that single case? What about the 10’s of thousands of others who have moved up?

It went downhill subsequent to Chavez’s death. That’s why “socialism” does not really work without a strong party. Interestingly enough it mirrors what happens in Capitalism when a strong owner of a company dies. When only one person controls the whole country and whent hat person dies without a true heir who is just as much of a believer, the whole system falls apart. That’s what government control gets ya.

That being said much like conservatism has never been tried as the old saying goes, neither has true socialism because human nature corrupts.

It’s a chicken or the egg argument.

However, this has nothing to do with US Socialism which is a different breed altogether. There are AMerican Communists, there are American socialists. The left on the whole does want to use the government to better society. The slippery slope, argument, that you use however is 100 years old. It was used throughout the 20th century. And yet here we are… havign the same argument. Why is that?

So you believe socialism is a viable alternative to capitalism if it is implemented properly?

I some cases you’re creating ‘‘abject poverty’’ where there was none.

As in me???

How about large parts of India today.

No I do not. I think in its pure form it stifles innovations and stagnates society.

But I do not believe that the iterations that we have seen are a form of actual socialism and not simply strongmen using it to their own benefit. You didn’t answer my other question. You don’t have to of course, it is a free country. Why is it that despite creeping socialism and communism the slope still has friction?

We are talking the takeover of whole industries, not individual companies. In a capitalist society there are millions of companies in a multitude of different sectors. Each is run by someone with expertise in their chosen field. If a particular company falters it will fail and its place will be taken by others.

Exactly why socialism is a failed economic model.

There is no such thing as pure socialism and there is no such thing as pure capitalism. However, one thing is sure. Every place where socialism has been tried, it has failed - without exception. There isn’t a single case where capitalism has failed. Not one.

No its not. Socialism is a failed system.

No its not. Socialism is Socialism.

I haven’t a clue what you are talking about???

You’ve lost me? What is your point?