he is referring specifically to the empirical track-record of attempts to overthrow capitalism, which is indisputably abysmal.
The sentence ended with “(although there are successes and failures from both approaches)” which changes the meaning to me. Will wait for the author to clarify.
This is the reason I don’t like labels of left/right/socialist/communist/capitalist/fascist etc.. It is much better to discuss policy.
The track record of attempts to overthrow any system of power are abysmal, I don’t see much point in thinking or discussing overthrowing anything.
The track record of attempts to overthrow any system of power are abysmal
I think you are seriously mistaken. Attempts to overthrow monarchy do not remotely have the track record of attempts to overthrow capitalism. Compare, say, the American and French revolutions of the 18th century with the Russian and Chinese revolutions of the 20th century.
[I have edited my comment to make it less confrontational.]
From the dawn of agriculture until the industrial revolution, we were ruled by kings, dynasties came and went, but the basic structure of kings remains.
What we have today is a continuation of that old system, in a new garb.
Is decolonization an overthrow of capitalism? Yes the russian revolutions was overthrown, but the authoritarian Chinese government is still in place, as are plenty of dictatorships e.g. Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
In any case I have no interest in revolution, overthrowing systems, or even thinking about them.
My original question was asking about comparison between “capitalist” and “socialist” systems. Since it was asserted that “left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse”.
OK, I don’t think he means that social welfare policies like public education and healthcare (as done in the context of a capitalist economy) are generally bad, but rather that properly socialist countries are bad. After all he did say that there are successes and failures from both approaches.
ok cool. we are in agreement that communist countries had serious problems. even so China pre-reform (1979) had good social indicators that should not be dismissed as if they dont exist.
The sentence ended with “(although there are successes and failures from both approaches)” which changes the meaning to me. Will wait for the author to clarify.
This is the reason I don’t like labels of left/right/socialist/communist/capitalist/fascist etc.. It is much better to discuss policy.
The track record of attempts to overthrow any system of power are abysmal, I don’t see much point in thinking or discussing overthrowing anything.
I think you are seriously mistaken. Attempts to overthrow monarchy do not remotely have the track record of attempts to overthrow capitalism. Compare, say, the American and French revolutions of the 18th century with the Russian and Chinese revolutions of the 20th century.
[I have edited my comment to make it less confrontational.]
From the dawn of agriculture until the industrial revolution, we were ruled by kings, dynasties came and went, but the basic structure of kings remains.
What we have today is a continuation of that old system, in a new garb.
Is decolonization an overthrow of capitalism? Yes the russian revolutions was overthrown, but the authoritarian Chinese government is still in place, as are plenty of dictatorships e.g. Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
In any case I have no interest in revolution, overthrowing systems, or even thinking about them.
My original question was asking about comparison between “capitalist” and “socialist” systems. Since it was asserted that “left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse”.
That’s exactly one of the main problems with the leftist reaction that jonathanpaulson mentioned. I’m not sure what you are disagreeing about.
I am not disagreeing, I am asking for clarification for the following sentence
“best reply to the left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse”″
OK, I don’t think he means that social welfare policies like public education and healthcare (as done in the context of a capitalist economy) are generally bad, but rather that properly socialist countries are bad. After all he did say that there are successes and failures from both approaches.
ok cool. we are in agreement that communist countries had serious problems. even so China pre-reform (1979) had good social indicators that should not be dismissed as if they dont exist.