|
|
|
|
|
|
by RobertoG
3226 days ago
|
|
|
So, if they are successful and call themselves communist they are not really communist. There are not private banks in China, for just pointing a random fact. I'm not defending the Chinese model, but the diminishing of poor people in the world that you pointed before is mostly due to China. >>"Like which? I'm not going to call any form of redistribution "socialism", like some people like to do." I suppose you agree that there are not pure capitalist states. What we see in the world is normally called "mixed economy". In your opinion, what is this mix composed of? Anyway, I think we are discussing about semantics. |
|
|
China is still very much communist in every way but economically. I don't mind calling them communist, it's just that if we're talking about an economic system and I'm looking for success story of socialism, you can't bring up China. Ever since China abandoned planned economy and employed capitalism, its economy has grown by leaps and bounds.
> I suppose you agree that there are not pure capitalist states. What we see in the world is normally called "mixed economy".
Whatever you want to call it, does "more socialism" or "more capitalism" correlate strongly with wealth? What about individual freedom?