What difference does that make? As far as I can see, he was talking about both.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:He was talking about Nicaragua, not the Soviet Union.
Er... no, see his quote.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:Besides, his comment was more to criticise the policies of the United States rather than to praise Nicaragua.
Yes, fine, there are no true democracies. Hitler was "elected" in the same sense Trump was "elected", the majority of the people (although not the vast majority) voted against him, yet there were some nonsensical laws that made him get power.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:No he wasn't. He lost the 1932 Presidential election to Hindenburg and was later appointed chancellor and then merged the two offices of president and chancellor into the office of fuehrer after Hindenburg's death.
Completely democratic societies don't exist, and they shouldn't exist. Should an entire town get to vote on whether you should be allowed to sell your own house? Making societies more democratic is not the solution.
Can you elaborate on that?Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: I'd say that there is also a clear distinction to be made between Venezuela and other countries with democratically elected socialist governments, such as in regard to their protectionist economic policies
Why? We know they manipulated the statistics to make socialism look good once, so why not again?Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:I said that you were going to have a hard time convincing anybody that they've manipulated statistics to make it appear as though Venezuela is a mixed economy.
OK, so, what do you think is a proper definition of capitalism? Equating capitalism with "economic freedom" is perhaps rather accurate. A definition usually cited in dictionaries appears to be something related to private property. That, if you ask me, makes sense only under the mantra "You have nothing if you have no rights.". If you "own" something, but some arbitrary laws prevent you from using it or selling it, then that's not really capitalism.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:It depends who's defining it. Where are you getting that definition from?
Economic freedom is a little hard to define, most definitions include the rule of law in it. That is, that the government doesn't do whatever the ruler wants it to do, but that there are some laws above the ruler. What Donald Trump did to Huawei would then be a violation of the rule of law. Now, rule of law is often extended to include the government protecting the victims of thefts... and, if you ask me, that's where the definition becomes self-contradictory, for the government needs to have some resources in order to protect people from crime, and that resources need to be taken from the people who probably don't want to give a part of their ownership to the government.
Socialism, on the other hand, is usually defined in the dictionaries as a system where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state. I think we can agree that this definition is very loaded. First, what are the "means of production"? Can I "own" a hammer under socialism or not? Hammer can be used as means of production, but it doesn't have to. Second, what is the "state"? All the people inside a country? By that logic, was what was happening during the Holodomor, people being killed for "stealing" some grain from a silo they "own", socialism or not? What does "collective ownership" even mean? What should happen when people who "own" something disagree on what should be done with that? Or is the "state" a small group of people chosen to rule because of their ability?
I think that, in praxis, what people mean when they say "socialism" is "opposition to economic freedom". "Socialism" is the term usually applied to things like high taxes, minimum wage laws, anti-sweatshop movements (no need for "state" in order to boycott sweatshops, obviously, but it clearly restricts where poor people can choose to work), nonsensical regulation, redistribution of wealth, and so on. I am not sure many people would agree that Holodomor was socialism. Though many would agree it was an unwanted result of the socialist policies.