/liberty/ - Liberty

>>94692

No, Macron already caved into their demands. Looks like Trump was right to reject that climate change bullshit bill lol

>>94740

>France enacts controversial new tax

>very unpopular

>massive protest which spill into massive riots happen in response

>Government backs down and suspends the tax

>Britain enacts controversial new taxes on her colonies

>very unpopular

>massive protest which spill into massive riots happen in response

>Britain responds by revoking Massachusetts' charter, removing any and all self governance, and putting Boston under martial law, and also enacting a secret plot to arrest all protest leaders and attempting to seize all militia armaments in the state

If the Brits did suspend the tax for 6 months, history would indeed be much different. France listened to and caved into the protesters while the British overlords just stubbornly shoved their laws down the colonist throats, while also enacting even harshes laws in the process.

>>94742

Well anglos are the lost jewish tribe after all.

"They're rioting because of the new taxes."

Am I the only one who thinks this is completely untrue at worst, a half-truth at best, but at the very least a forced meme by out-of-touch old boomer media?

>>94861

You're not the only one, no. However, as much as many people on our side of the fence are trying to meme this as a great uprising against the leftists and commies, the evidence I've seen or heard for that is really circumstantial. Besides a couple isolated pictures of signs people were holding, I haven't seen much to indicate that something other than the tax was the proximate cause of the riots. Then again, they're French, they have a history of chimping out and cutting people's heads off with flimsy justification.

>>94693

The idea of crypto definitely fits perfectly with ancapism.

marcon hightened minimal wage because of these protests…

Fuel taxes are bullshit because it both adversely affects the working class and also is effectivly a tax on the ability to live and work since if we are honest with ourselves cars are a borderline essential for living in a westernised industrial country

Same can be said of other programs like the sales tax which is one of the only taxes the goverment can use to continue taxing the homeless and unemployed

>>94930

Isn't their youth unemployment already ridiculously high enough? Do they want to create an even larger class of people who will have no job and free time to riot?

>>94933

Yes, you're getting there. Now take a deep breath and say it with me: "taxation is theft."

>>94935

Yes it is and simultaneously isn't as society renews its legitimacy through lack of revolt against it

Taxation will be gone under higher stage Communism and throughout history has both been streamlined and heavily decreased in Socialist / Marxist states because of the cutting out of the middlemen

>>94930

edit: he did not after all

>>94939

>Taxation will be gone under higher stage Communism

AHAHA. keep going commie. Not real communism strikes once again.

>>94942

>Not real communism strikes again

No higher stage communist society has been achieved or even attempted by Marxists at this point as there is a differentiation between Lower stage (Socialism) Communism and Higher stage Communism

And yes Taxes would literally be useless in a Communist society

>>94957

Yes the USSR achieved the ten planks set out in the communist manifesto pretty well and can safely be called a socialist and Marxist state

Tough as Marx and Engels explained in their other works this was simply "10 reforms a communist party should seek to implement" and they clearly state that a society that performs the 10 planks isn't necessarily a socialist state and vice versa

So basically yes the USSR was socialist but was not Communist though being ruled by a communist party

>>94934

yes. Feedback loop my guy.

>>94968

Ok I'll try to boil it down a little bit more simple for you

The communist manifesto's ten planks are the Planks of the Communist League which was an organisation Marx and Engels were members in was the leagues immediate goal's to aid in the transition to lower stage Communism (See/Socialism) and eventually higher stage Communism (See:Communism)

Never did they claim that a society achieving some of or all of these planks automatically make it Communist or was communist in practice

So no I'm not saying "it wasn't real communism" I'm saying that the Communist Manifests planks were explicitly stated by Marx not to be the end stage / higher stage of communism

>>94963

>First of all, most commies consider the USSR to be real communism, especially when looking at its virtues and not its flaws. So until you can come to a consensus as to what "real communism" is, and not just call it real communism when talking about dogs being sent to space, but then call it capitalism when it's mentioned that people are starving, you are just full of shit.

>When totally socialist country becomes just a tiny bit more capitalist, it will still not be perfect, but it will already be an improvement compared to before.

Well this is just blatantly untrue

Most of Eastern Europe regardless of actual political affiliation openly admit that economies and standards of living were much higher while their countries were in socialist periods

>>95069

>>94963

Cont.

>>First of all, most commies consider the USSR to be real communism, especially when looking at its virtues and not its flaws. So until you can come to a consensus as to what "real communism" is, and not just call it real communism when talking about dogs being sent to space, but then call it capitalism when it's mentioned that people are starving, you are just full of shit.

No Marxist or even the Communist party of the Soviet Union itself claimed that the USSR had achieved communism what the USSR achieved was what Marx had described as a "Lower stage Communism" (See: Socialist economy)

And on your point of capitalism raising standards of living asides from the example of Eastern Europe given I can point to many examples of Marxist Goverments improving the standards of living and development of a Nation such as the USSR Cuba North Korea etc

>>95069

>All these failures are communism but at the same time not really because they are not actual communism because actual communism would only be when it fits my whims and wishes.

Imagine the amounts of mental gymnastics in the pile of shit that is a communist brain.

>Most of Eastern Europe regardless of actual political affiliation openly admit that economies and standards of living were much higher while their countries were in socialist periods

AHAHAHAHA, keep lying, filthy trash, just like the regimes you worship did before you.

>No Marxist or even the Communist party of the Soviet Union itself claimed that the USSR had achieved communism what the USSR achieved was what Marx had described as a "Lower stage Communism"

>USSR

You mean, to those who were left after it traded lives of their citizens for money? It failed continuously during the whole period of its existence and you know it, you just blatantly lie about it because there are no more means for you to achieve anything, you worthless, talentless mindless shell that has only found a way to be filled with garbage and used as the lowest and most worthless tool.

>North Korea

You're not even trying. Get out in there and die by starvation in there and do not waste our time with your senseless crazy blabbery.

>>95076

>Imagine the amounts of mental gymnastics in the pile of shit that is a communist brain.

Show me where in my post where I said that

>AHAHAHAHA, keep lying, filthy trash, just like the regimes you worship did before you.

This information is readily available and easy to look up

Almost all former USSR states populations do regret the unions collapse

And in the case of the Eastern bloc states such as Hungary Bulgaria and the former DDR a majority of people now believe their economic situation was better under socialism

>You mean, to those who were left after it traded lives of their citizens for money?

I'm not sure what your referencing here

>It failed continuously during the whole period of its existence and you know it, you just blatantly lie about it because there are no more means for you to achieve anything, you worthless, talentless mindless shell that has only found a way to be filled with garbage and used as the lowest and most worthless tool.

This is once blatantly false

By 1991 the standard of living of the USSR had risen magnitudes higher for its entire population comparative to what it had been in 1921 (end of the civil war)

After the restoration of a capitalist Market economy and the Unions dissolution the economy and the standards of living of the constituent states took a sharp dip in the 1990s that in some cases hasn't recovered to this day

>You're not even trying. Get out in there and die by starvation in there and do not waste our time with your senseless crazy blabbery.

Compare the DPR-Korea to Korea under Japanese occupation

It is clearly not as developed as the ROK but it's getting there and asides the exceptional circumstances like the arduous march the standard of living of the citizenry has been on a general upward trend

>>95086

Actual poll data shows otherwise:

Two different polls:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end-of-communism-cheered-but-now-with-more-reservations/

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/01/20/the-post-communist-generation-in-the-former-eastern-bloc/

>don't bother to keep records regarding poverty/wages in their meticulously crafted command economy because they knew they were doing such an awesome job there was no need to

>jail people for years at a time for "vagrancy" so that they don't have to count them as homeless

>jail 10% of their population for having wrong opinions

>doctor tons of photographs of people removed from office or killed, striking people from the record when convenient

>commit war crimes and blame them on the nazis only admitting to them just under two and a half generations later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre)

Sounds like a swell bunch we should all seek to emulate

Soviet Openness Brings Poverty Out of the Shadows

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/world/soviet-openness-brings-poverty-out-of-the-shadows.html

>>95095

>the more capitalist a country is on the list, the more it claims to be better off than under communism

Coincidence?

>>95119

This. These polls don’t talk about what the current status quo economic policies of these specific countries are. Just because they’re no longer under the umbrella of the monolithic USSR doesn’t mean they’d instantly embraced anarcho-capitalism or something lol

>>95119

They're all mostly equal in terms of being capitalist, having mixed economies.

The only common thing seems to be, with the exception of Russia, that the more nationalist a country's population is, the less likely they are to think that capitalism improved anything.

Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic are exceptions due to Russia being under Putin and thus having their nationalist aspirations covered to some level, Poland associating Communism with foreign occupation, and the Czech Republic both associating communism with a union with Slovakia and generally being less inclined to adopt neoliberal capitalism. Social democrats in the Czech Republic basically adopted the right-wing populist social stances and so austerity isn't a thing there.

The really interesting thing is that Ukrainians seem to be very anti-capitalist. And, this is large enough to mean that the Western half of Ukraine is at least significantly anticapitalist. This seems to go against the narrative of Ukrainians being the stooges of global capital that Russophiles like to propagate.

>>95126

George Soros type capitalist oligarchs are trash tough.

>>95126

>The really interesting thing is that Ukrainians seem to be very anti-capitalist.

Ukrainians are just spergs who think banging a shoe against the table is a viable substitute for coherent foreign policy. I'm not even sure if it's correct to say that anything as abstract as pro or anti-capitalism is what drives Ukrainians, they seem to be motivated entirely by being international attention whores and reminding everyone that WE WUZ KIEVAN RUS NIGGA.

>>95132

Ukrainians aren't pro or against anything. Their government is still filled with the same old corrupt politicians who haven't been removed from office despite three "revolutions", and are just milking the country as much as they can before it gets conquered by Russia or America or whoever gets to it first.

>tfw no Ukrainian libertarian qt

>>95119

what is "More capitalist"?

And no

Russia and the Ukraine along with Hungary underwent the most extreme shock therapy transitions to capitalism

>>95096

Those polls are from the same articles linked to you by me

And yes China's economy for the Most Part is a Leninist State-Capitalist one

this dosent change the socialist character of the state

>>95132

>Ignoring reality this much

oh yes how silly to think that Ukranians may miss the days their country was "the worlds 17th largest economy" and "Not in a constant race war"

Ukranians are just natural dumb dumbs XD

>>95145

what is she saying?

>>95237

>State-Capitalist

Are communists in agreement that default capitalism is stateless?

>>95237

>what is "More capitalist"?

a reduction in the scope of the command economy and an increase in the market economy

>he most extreme shock therapy transitions to capitalism

How are oligarchic land grabs considered capiltalistic? Russia is still a command economy just changing hands from the old guard to the new.

>>95245

>that default capitalism is stateless?

No capitalism requires the state to survive in any viable way

By "State-Capitalism" i talk about it in the sense lenin talked about it which is a state in which a communist party controls the governing heights of the economy while a Capitalist Market still exists under the party's control

examples of this include the USSR In the NEP period Modern China Laos and Vietnam etc

>>95246

>a reduction in the scope of the command economy and an increase in the market economy

that certainly has occurred more in the former USSR then it did in the Czech republic or slovakia

>How are oligarchic land grabs considered capiltalistic?

the Land and enterprises are transferred into the hands of a private capitalist class who extract a profit from the enterprises (Business) and Land in the form of resources

that is a capitalist economy

<TLDR

>"Not Real Capitalism!!!! XD"

>>95249

Aren't you commie shits tired of repeating the same thing over and over again? It won't become any more real despite your best efforts. "Anything i don't like is capitalism" doesn't work here, go try that in your natural habitat - tublr, /trannypol/.

>>95251

>Aren't you commie shits tired of repeating the same thing over and over again? It won't become any more real despite your best efforts. "Anything i don't like is capitalism"

I didnt claim that

But it is an undeniable fact that the economic model of the Russian Federation and its orbiter states is a Capitalist Market economy

All i need point to is the fact that Private enterprise dominates the nations economy and those who own said enterprise dominate the nations politics

Do you have any evidence that the economic system of the Russian Fed / Ukraine etc isnt capitalist?

>>95246

>syndicalism is "more capitalist" because the command structure is abolished, and capitalism is "less capitalist" because the owner commands others.

Thank you for another round of "why ML isn't left" 101…

>>95252

>But it is an undeniable fact that the economic model of the Russian Federation and its orbiter states is a Capitalist Market economy

It's undeniable only for 1-dimensional mid of a leftist. The economy is very heavily regulated and almost all its main actors are fully controlled by the government, either via direct ownership or loyal people at its leading positions, achieved directly through its intervention and lobbyism. It's not that different from what USSR was back then in that regard.

>>95262

>The economy is very heavily regulated

Citation needed

> and almost all its main actors are fully controlled by the government,

other way around there mate

>either via direct ownership or loyal people at its leading positions

The Russian government privatized almost all state enterprises in the 90s there is no generalized "Direct control"

And "Loyalists" certainly dont control these holdings but instead the Oligarchs who own the holdings have the GOVERMENT as Loyal to them

>achieved directly through its intervention and lobbyism

Oligarchs Lobby the government for privileges yes

like most capitalist economies

>It's not that different from what USSR was back then in that regard.

It is very different as the USSR outside of the NEP era lacked both generalized Private enterprise and the oligarch class associated with Russia today

>>95269

>>95262

Cont.

And even if by Chance the oligarchs were puppets of the goverment and not the other way around this would not change that the generalized economic Model in the Russian Fed is Capitalistic

>>95269

>Oligarchs Lobby the government for privileges yes like most capitalist economies

>the oligarchs were puppets of the goverment and not the other way around this would not change that the generalized economic Model in the Russian Fed is Capitalistic

Those would be command economies and hence not capitalistic.

>>95249

>that certainly has occurred more in the former USSR then it did in the Czech republic or slovakia

How so?

>the Land and enterprises are transferred into the hands of a private capitalist class

Disregarding the fact that classes are spooks which already is enough to invalidate your statement, capitalists operate in a market economy, which Russia predominately does not have.

>>95269

>Citation needed

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_in_Russia

>other way around there mate

Doesn't matter. Same shit can be said about any country with command economics.

>The Russian government privatized almost all state enterprises in the 90s there is no generalized "Direct control"

Renaming shit doesn't do shit. All the owners of the privatized things are either officials, their family or close friends.

>Oligarchs Lobby the government for privileges yes

Like all current fucking economies. Don't lie about USSR not having this shit. You can only play semantics by calling them "ruling party" or "legitimate government".

>lacked both generalized Private enterprise

Senseless blabbery

>oligarch class

Replaced by party class, if you're so keen on using such a stupid concept as "classes".

>>95271

>I'll keep repeating the same empty claim and they'll sure believe me

Why do you inbred sacks of shit have to be this retarded and boring?

Also this doubleposting is terrible and you should kill yourself for this reason only. Stupid redditors like you don't deserve to have their stupid opinion heard.

>>95281

<All that gay shit you said

Not arguments. Suck more dick, homonigger.

>>95283

>Not arguments. Suck more dick, homonigger.

<Coming from you

L M A O

M

A

O

>>95290

>>95286

Cont.

Also.

claiming that Public Utilities (Wtaer / electricity / Roads / Trains) are all that the economy is built upon is foolishness

>Industry

Almost all privatized in the 90s

>>95290

>Opinion

Fact

>I can observe it well enough

You're mentally ill and incapable of observation

>dictatorship of the proletariate

What a fucking joke

>The point was more that if you consider "Government controlling public utilities such as water Railroads Electricty etc" as socialistic then almost every country on earth is socialistic

It indeed is, the thing that differs is the spread of the government in these spheres

>Slavery was Universally abolished in Socialist states

You mean renamed. Semantics and lying are the only things you are capable of.

>No it is a simple fact that members of the CPSU did not profit off of either Public Utilities nor other state enterprises

As if it mattered

>what separated CPSU members from workers in the USSR?

Police force

>t. AnCap / Libertarian in Current year

Listen to what >>95288 said and shoo shoo back into your mother's asshole, insect.

>>95291

>claiming that Public Utilities (Wtaer / electricity / Roads / Trains) are all that the economy is built upon is foolishness

Nicely ignored that industry, factories, production and natural resources are there as well. But why would a communist ever be honest and objective?

>Almost all privatized in the 90s

Not a single thought in an empty drone head, it just keeps repeating all that was put inside only to be wasted and used later.

>>95317

Not an argument, suck a dick, /trannypol/

>>95248

>capitalism requires the state to survive in any viable way

Wait until you learn about Cospaia and Moresnet.

>>95281

>>Corruption within a goerment prevents the economy from being capitalistic

Why the strawman? The existence of a command economy is a non-capitalist economy.

>False Class is observable

False. Class is subjective.

>Russia DOES predominantly have a Market economy. Do you have any evidence to say otherwise?

If they did have a predominate market economy, they would score high on the EFI (they are ranked 107th). They would not have excessive tariffs, trades sanctions, and nationalized industries to such a scale.

>>95342

>The existence of a command economy is a non-capitalist economy.

It's literally the defining feature of a capitalist economy.

>>95355

<capitalism is the total abolition of property

Interesting hypotheosis.

>>95365

There are charities which can teach you, anon.

>>95348

>he is claiming exists in Russia when it clearly dosent

But there is a command economy in Russia. and that is what I am exactly claiming in my post.

>A. Is Biased in favor of nations that are viewed by and view the US favorably

proof?

>B. Confuses economic freedoms with Political freedoms

They are one and the same since state policies affect the economy

>Capitalist states have had Tariffs for centuries

Your point? Capitalism is not Boolean but rather a spectrum.

>As i have pointed out the nationalization of industry in Russia is not Greater than or even equal to most other capitalist nations

where did you point this out?

>>95599

>Russian Federation does not perform state intervention into the economy at any higher rate then the vast majority of other capitalist states

Proof?

>even those that have implemented Social-Democratic reforms that /liberty/ would label "Socialist" like Mandated healthcare and education models like Scandinavia

Education is not very “socialist” in Scandi countries. Finland is less so than the US because they have pay incentives for teachers. Neither is their welfare system - Sweden’s national pension system is partially privatized unlike the US Social Security program. US Healthcare is not only mandated but heavily regulated as is evident by H1A restrictions, licensing, AMA monopolization, Medicare/Medicaid, CHIP, etc. What you ignore are the aspects that make them more capitalistic.

>NOT Success stories of capitalism like Brazil / Most of Africa / Argentina / Russia etc are shown as "unfree" despite having much less ""Regulated" and "Socialist" economies

Any proof that they are less regulated than those listed on the higher rankings?

>Chile Junta / Brazil junta / Argentina junta / Taiwan and South Korea for most of the Cold war etc\

None of these are even considered capitalist by our modern standard.

>thus Russia is capitalist

Not really. It is more mixed economic system like China.

>>95599

>except it does as you constantly claim that any capitalist economy that does not work perfectly (Russia / Former East Bloc etc) isnt capitalism as is somehow socialistic

It's capitalist relatively, not absolutely.

>Any members of the CPSU still in the goverment were part of Yeltsin's clique of capitalist infiltrators

Yes, burning your party membership card in a heroic display of defiance when things aren't going well for the party is only something an American spy would do, and not because you're a filthy commie who wants to continue stealing the people's wealth in the new government.

>the Reforms included mass privatization of state assests

People didn't even get salaries back then, my dad was literally paid in vodka at his restaurant job. Tell me who, besides those with ties to the government, would have the money to buy a factory?

>an almost complete austerity being applied to social services and a mass transfer of production to the capitalist class

I don't remember having fully privatized healthcare, education, and transport.

>Find me literally any evidence that Yeltsin was ever NOT a capitalist

Capitalists don't get elected to the Central Commitee of the CPSU and capitalists don't get Orders of Lenin on their birthdays for services to the communist party.

>Much higher then the current standard of living of the Post-Soviet east

Russians were so piss-poor that eating oranges during winter was considered a luxury, that's why they bought them only once during New Year's, making it a tradition to this day. Russians didn't even have toilet paper until the 80s, you cannot tell me a country like that had a decent standard of living.

>>95637

Jesus Christ, I don't know who you think you're trying to lie to.

>Unlike Russia where Land ownership is privatized and private land and property is prevalent

Only 7% of the land in the Russian Federation is in private ownership. The government won't budge from the rest of the 93% that it's been sitting on like some mad dog. What's worse, the commieblacks that half the country lives in are owned (and still built) by the government, so even if an apartment inside one is de facto "yours", you are still living on government property.

>This is different then the private baking of the Russia

What private banking? Just a few weeks ago I tried to change some cash I had leftover from vacation, and there wasn't a single bank in my city that did currency exchange (besides Euros, Dollars, and Yuan). The only bank that did had recently got their license taken away. The state-owned SberBank bank has a monopoly, and all other banks that aren't also owned by government oligarchs are regulated out of the market. Even Russian commies will tell you that the central bank fucks us harder than than your tranny girlfriend fucks you every night.

>>95637

>The example that was given to me to

You are making the claim, so you have to provide the proof.

> decent chunk of which were Public-Private ventures

So somehow the public incorporation into these ventures is somehow not state intervention?

>the goverment being the primary owner of Utility companies and Airlines Dosent mean that the goverment has direct or indirect control

Actually, it does. Otherwise, why take ownership?

>After the 1990s effectivly all public agriculture and non Utility public industry and production was transferred to private ownership and has stayed

Transfers of state industries to politically-connected oligarchs is somehow not state intervention?

> even if the vast majority of the economy Is run in a capitalistic manner

It is this qualifier that makes Russia not capitalistic.

>The fact that finlands education system is more privatised then America and the fact that Swedens Pension system is more private then the US Dosent change the fact in a generalised sense the economies and Social-Security systems of these countries are much more (What a Libertarian would call) "Socialist" then America

I provided proof that contradicts your claims. You still have not provided proof that supports them.

>Australian has a much more comprehensive Social-Democratic Model

Australia has a 1.6% weighted average tariff and a deficit budget of 1.7% of GDP.compared to the 2% and 3.4% of the US respectively. These figures do not support the claim that Australia is less economically free than the US or that Australia embraces a “Social-Democratic” model relative to the US.

>non-existent sanitation and environmental standards effectivly no workplace safety or Minimum wage laws

What are you talking about? Russia, Brazil, and many African countries have sanitation, safety, and minimum wage laws.

>no real ability for the goverment to even propally regulate commerce and enterprise in its territory (Like nations in the middle of civil wars

Even in civil wars, state entities have effectively interfered with commerce. ISIS kept the same mnunicipal bureaucratic structure from cities that they captured and collected taxes, tolls, and fines.

>[These Juntas] were held up by Conservatives

Opinions !@= facts

>held up by Conservatives and Libertarians as examples of "capitalism prospering"

This is not proof that countries were capitalistic. “Capitalism prospering” could be interpreted as specific economic policies compared to the previous regime’s policies (such as trade liberalization in Chile) or overall economic policy such as South Korea compared to North Korea. The fact that some economic activity is not state-regulated does not mean that state regulation is not endemic in that state.

>There is fundamentally nothing that any of these groups did that were "Anti-Capitalist" in nature

Economic regulations are proof of anti-capitalist activities done by these states.

>And tell me if they Weren't / Aren't capitalist then are you admitting that non capitalist systems can create high standards of living for the population?

Capitalist policies can create higher standards of living, but as I mentioned before alone do not determine alone that a country is capitalist.

>Literally nothing alike

They do not need to be alike to both share mixed economic systems.

>>95654

So socialism is when the government does stuff?

Literally?

>>95655

>Russia is not a "Mixed economy" neither is China Russia is capitalist while China is Socialist

LOL fucking what?

How the fuck is China socialist?

The absolute brain of socialists.

>>95655

>A Public Private venture is effectively when an institution is run in the name of the state but in reality is still profited off of and owned (Depending on the exact circumstance) by the capitalist class

But it's not 'profited off of and owned' by the capitalist class. It's owned by the state for the benefit of the state, at least in part.

I don't know what you're trying to claim; isn't partial public ownership of the means of production through the (in principle democratic) state not more in keeping with socialism than complete private ownership?

>>95654

>Commies do not Authorize mass privatization of state assets

It is not really privatization when transferring from state officials to other state officials.

>Just because the capitalist that owns the private enterprise

That state official is not a capitalist but an extension of the state.

>Foreign investors invited by Yeltsin

Those state officials were not foreign.

>capitalist (Oligarch) class

Capitalists cannot be members of an oligarchy. If they were they would be operating within a command economy and hence not capitalists:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

>A Public Private venture is effectively when an institution is run in the name of the state but in reality is still profited off of and owned

You are ignoring the conditions that having shared public ownership entails in contrast to private ventures such as access to state loans, golden parachutes, more favorable subsidies, and shielding from competition (charters, barriers of entry, regulatory capture, tariffs/quotas on comparative goods, etc.).

>Just because the state intervenes in a few basic areas for stability against Market forces dosent change the capitalist nature of the rest of the economy

If the rest of the economy acts independently without any interference, then that would be a capitalist economy. However, you have not shown that said economy exists. Which said sectors lack regulation?

>An individual being "Politically connected" or an "Oligarch" does not stop them from being a capitalist and the system they exist in being capitalism

1. That oligarch obtained such ventures illegitimately since these were transferred absent a free market, and hence not capitalist.

2. These public-private ventures are subject to heavy state-regulation as I’ve shown above.

>It Dosent.

It does. Remember capitalism is a spectrum. Ventures not operating within a free market are not operating in a capitalist manner.

>Completely subjective concept of "Economic Freedom" drawn by a think tank

It is not subjective. They even detail the qualities that determine the rankings.

>I dont see why you put "Social-Democratic" in quotations

Because relative to the US, such a term does not comply to Australia.

>Also how does the size of budget deficit's affect "Economic freedom"?

More public expenditure = more public interference on goods that would otherwise be provided by the market.

>The Heritage foundation itself has held Chile up for decades after the Junta

We were not discussing post-Junta Chile,

>I agree their actions prove it

Political actions are not capitlsistic unless they are deregulatory.

>Basic regulations on the economy and capitalism does not prevent capitalism from existing

If said regulations interfere with the free market, then they do.

<It can have an entirely capitalistic economy but if it dosent look nice to live in its not capitalism

Blatant strawman Just because one aspect in an economy is capitalistic does not mean the entire economy is capitalistic. Remember capitalism is a spectrum.

>Russia is not a "Mixed economy"

It is:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mixed-economic-system.asp

>>94951

kill yourself

>>96278

>China is led by the CCP (Communist party of China) who still holds Marxism and Leninism as their guiding ideology

Communism is when billionaires worship Marx.

Yep, that's fucking communism alright.

>I've already given a deep explanation of the PRC's economy on multiple occasions but effectivly it can be compared to the NEP period of the USSR

So it is capitalism, end of of.

>A. "Communism" was never reached in the USSR As it only achieved a Socialist model of production

So why do people not own the means of production in the USSR?

>B. Stats show most Russians / Ex-Soviets do in fact miss the USSR

They miss the prestige of the USSR.

>Emotional arguement

How is a thief, an actual material accusation, an emotional argument?

>"Freedom" is not a material reality and his can never be "reached"

Freedom which means rights which citizen enjoy, which is a material reality, unlike communism.

>There is no capitalist society where collusion between the state and the capitalist has not happened

There has not been a society without a state, in the same way, the USSR is capitalist.

>Individuals who had been members of the goverment bought the state assests and thus became the capitalist class

Those state assets were ruled and managed by the Soviet bureaucrats in the USSR, or in case of China, owned by the individuals themselves.

>The capitalist / Oligarch class IS the ruling class as they dominate the economic and political life of society under capitalism.

Then when do we get to purge communists?

>That didn't happen in the Soviet Union

Yes, it fucking didn't. What is the different between a manager who owns the means of production and hire laborers vs a capitalist who owns the means of production and hire laborers, none!

>There is no difference between an Oligarch and a capitalist

Nope, a capitalist can not become an oligarch, but pretty much every strong government position in the USSR are oilgarchs, Stalin included.

>Yes private-Public enterprises are often given advantages by the state but that does not make them socialised or state owned as they still operate in a fundamentally Capitalist manner

So you admit the USSR is capitalist?

>In fact most of them quite literally purchased the enterprises from the state during privatisations

And how did they have the money and fund to purchase them in the first place, hmm? Why do you think the ones who bought them have relationship or were FORMER Soviet officials?

>As I have pointed out they still operate in a capitalist manner

Like the USSR?

>Are free markets

Nope, every markets in the world are regulated in some form.

>All the Juntas listed did that

Did what? They put in some regulations and remove some.

>There is no objective bar as to what a "free Market" is thus it can never really exist anyhow as it is a purely ideological concept

Yes there is, a free market is one WITHOUT REGULATIONS.

>If it has private ownership of enterprise and wage labor it is capitalism

So you admit USSR and China are capitalist economies?

>>95069

>Most of Eastern Europe regardless of actual political affiliation openly admit that economies and standards of living were much higher while their countries were in socialist periods

Source?

>>96283

>Communism is when Billionaires worship Marx

I never claimed that

What china has is a economy with heavy market elements in the name of development

No one is claiming that "Billionaires are Marxism"

>So it is capitalism, end of of.

No it is State-monopoly-Capitalism which is the transition stage between a capitalist or pre-Capitalist economy and a Socialist one

In which capitalist enterprise is allowed to exist and private enterprise does enjoy some rights though firmly under the boot of the communist party

>So why do people not own the means of production in the USSR?

They did

The USSR also does not exist anymore

>They miss the prestige of the USSR

This is a false idea propagated by Liberals as proof Russia's "Neo-Soviet expansionism"

Most Russians surveyed clearly state the economic catastrophe they have seen under capitalism as a main reason for discontent

>Freedom which means rights which citizen enjoy, which is a material reality, unlike communism.

Youre falling into a loop

Rights are also a ideological concept and not a material reality and what should or should not be a "Right" variate between individuals

>There has not been a society without a state, in the same way, the USSR is capitalist.

Collision between the Non-Existent capitalists and the state didn't occur in the USSR

>Those state assets were ruled and managed by the Soviet bureaucrats

Managers and Beuracrats didn't "Rule" state enterprises

They didn't profit off of them or posses ownership of them in any way

>Yes, it fucking didn't. What is the different between a manager who owns the means of production and hire laborers vs a capitalist who owns the means of production and hire laborers, none!

The difference is

The manager does not own the Means of production

He does not profit off of the Means of production

He is ultimately still a worker who is simply performing his duty of managing the enterprise for the state

>Nope, a capitalist can not become an oligarch, but pretty much every strong government position in the USSR are oilgarchs, Stalin included.

Capitalists become Oligarchs all the time with or without collision between them and the state

Stalin and most soviet officals on the other hand held no control over the Means of production and profited of them in no way

>So you admit the USSR is capitalist?

The USSR did not have "Public-Private ventures" but rather enterprise owned and managed directly by the state so No.

>And how did they have the money and fund to purchase them in the first place, hmm? Why do you think the ones who bought them have relationship or were FORMER Soviet officials?

Theo's was caused by corruption in the Soviet state apparatus

No offical condoning of embezzlement of state funds existed

Neither did widespread corruption in itself

Thus why the few that were corrupt were able to land into oligarchic positions over huge swarthy of land so quickly

Also it helped that Yeltsin was literally selling land and factories for pennies and pretty much anyone with a few connections could amass a mini fiefdom with little effort

>Like the USSR?

The USSR operated under a socialist economy and No longer exists anyhow

>Nope, every markets in the world are regulated in some form.

THIS is true

>Did what? They put in some regulations and remove some.

Most "Regulations" put in place related to political and social policy while most policies related to stripping "regulation" were economic ones

>Yes there is, a free market is one WITHOUT REGULATIONS.

As you have stated that exists nowhere on earth and has never existed in history

Thus proving my point that the completely "Free Market" is an ideological pipe dream

>So you admit USSR and China are capitalist economies?

If by USSR you mean Russia then yes if not No

No for China for as stated it's State-Capitalist economy has diverted from capitalism in multiple areas and is simply keeping the Market elements for development

>>96299

>Majority of ex-DDR citizens regret its collapse / Unification / Method of Unification

It seems that's the citizen having a problem with how morally corrupt modern society is, and that is worldwide, capitalism or communism.

>And the obvious one being mass Nostalgia for the Soviet Union and in particular "the economic system and economic unification between states" among ex-Soviet citizens

Because the ruskies WANT that prestige and satelittes that the USSR possess, see the "unificiation between states" line. Hell, I can almost say it's propaganda so that Putin can retake his satelitte states.

>>96300

>What china has is a economy with heavy market elements in the name of development

Which end as you expected: billionaires who participate in a Marxist party and praise Marx!

>No it is State-monopoly-Capitalism which is the transition stage between a capitalist or pre-Capitalist economy and a Socialist one

Nope, it is capitalism, full of. No transitional, no word, it's simply capitalism. Private proverty, wage labor, everything that is found in modern industrial country can be found in either USSR or China.

>They did

Proof they owned the means of productions in the USSR?

>This is a false idea propagated by Liberals as proof Russia's "Neo-Soviet expansionism"

Yet they wanted the "unification of USSR", which include states that do not belong to the USSR, you fool no one here.

>Most Russians surveyed clearly state the economic catastrophe they have seen under capitalism as a main reason for discontent

Nope, they just miss the USSR, which is propped up by a capitalist economy.

>Rights are also a ideological concept and not a material reality and what should or should not be a "Right" variate between individuals

Rights which are enforced then become real. Just like words.

>Collision between the Non-Existent capitalists and the state didn't occur in the USSR

Yes it does, the Non-Existent Capitalists just become the state bureaucrats and factory managers.

>Managers and Beuracrats didn't "Rule" state enterprises

Yes they do, they direct the workers, they control who they hire, and they gain profit by doing nothing.

>He does not profit off of the Means of production

Yes he does, what does he do? Signing paper and directing people, that's not working, he creates nothing. He just controls who get to use the means of production.

>Capitalists become Oligarchs all the time with or without collision between them and the state

Not in the case of USSR or China when billionaires are party members.

>Stalin and most soviet officals on the other hand held no control over the Means of production and profited of them in no way

Which explains why they control the work flow, the factories, and the workers never have any say.

>The USSR did not have "Public-Private ventures" but rather enterprise owned and managed directly by the state so No.

Except the one who manages the state also manages the factories, see?

>Theo's was caused by corruption in the Soviet state apparatus

And this corruption means that the state creates capitalists, these capitalists just BECOME out of thin air in 1991, no.

>Thus why the few that were corrupt were able to land into oligarchic positions over huge swarthy of land so quickly

WOW! So the lack of widespread corruption is why wealth is controlled by the few! Wow, so that means corruption is a good thing.

>The USSR operated under a socialist economy and No longer exists anyhow

USSR operated under a state-controlled capitalist economy, no worker ever control the means of productions.

>Most "Regulations" put in place related to political and social policy while most policies related to stripping "regulation" were economic ones

Proof?

>As you have stated that exists nowhere on earth and has never existed in history

Just like communism.

>If by USSR you mean Russia then yes if not No

No, by USSR, I mean the USSR, it has all that, private property (controlled by the state) and wage labor.

>No for China for as stated

To quote your own lying:

><Capitalism is not a sliding scale where it becomes more "Capitalistic" or "Socialistic" depending on how it functions

><If it has private ownership of enterprise and wage labor it is capitalism

Thus USSR and China are capitalist.

>>96306

state monopoly "capitalism" is not capitalism since ownership of capital, the defining feature, is literally impossible under a state

>>96372

How? Individuals who manage a state can own and manage private properties and in turn stockpile capital/wealth.

>>96374

>capitalism for me, not for thee

That's basically what communism is in practice for the ruling class.