I think one of the reasons why socialism is so unfalsifiable is because itās incredibly easy for socialists to shift the goalposts rapidly to another form of āsocialismā upon critique, so thank you for your definition.
You say āitās just the reduction the private capitalā or this relatively benign form of anti-imperialism, but the post above outlines the USSRās space program or Chinaās economic growth as examples of socialist successes, so it must be to do with the āsocialismā in those economies. Your definition sounds like capitalism to me: you can pay rent to a landlord, have your surplus labour taken, the only condition is that āprivate capitalā is being āreducedā (something like the railways are being nationalised or corporations are being taxed).
On your institutional point, being intergovernmental organisations, I donāt believe IMF and World Bank are āprivate capitalā. Furthermore, the Belt & Road initiative is run by China, which is listed as a socialist country in the post.
On your intervention point, would I prefer US intervention done in the name of anti-communism across the late 20th century wasnāt so brutal and destructive. Does that make me any less of a liberal? I think you can be pro-capitalism and anti-imperialism, in the same way you can be pro-socialism and pro-imperialism (China, Venezuela, USSR). In other words the attributes pro-imperialism and pro-capitalism are independent.
The general thrust of my take here is that most economies are a hybrid of pro- and anti-property systems, so itās hard to disentangle a lot of it. But Iāll have a crack:
the post above outlines the USSRās space program or Chinaās economic growth as examples of socialist successes, so it must be to do with the āsocialismā in those economies
Oh, I read these as counter-examples to the theory that capitalism is a superior economic principle; that whatever causes these things could be independent of either. But equally, Chinaās economic growth might be more attributable to their capitalist tendencies than their socialist ones.
Your definition sounds like capitalism to me: you can pay rent to a landlord, have your surplus labour taken, the only condition is that āprivate capitalā is being āreducedā
Itās all a spectrum, right? No system is entirely ācapitalistā either, in the sense that not all forms of capital are subject to private ownership for profit. So I was looking more at decreasing private capital relative to the status quo, rather than abolishing it entirely. It wouldnāt be beyond the pale to refer to such acts as āsocialistā.
being intergovernmental organisations, I donāt believe IMF and World Bank are āprivate capitalā
Given that almost every capitalist government raises some of its own capital by borrowing money from private citizens, yes, these organisations partially serve private capital. I canāt speak to the extent, untangling global debt flows seems hard.
In other words the attributes pro-imperialism and pro-capitalism are independent.
I think thatās fair. I was speaking toward the tendency of capitalist systems to exhaust themselves of growth in their places of origin, and then start looking outward. The usual example leftists like to trot out here is the Dutch East India Company (not without reason!). I think you might be able to be capitalist and anti-imperialist, but itās harder work and you might find yourself out-competed by those willing to extract the extra value by doing so.
I think one of the reasons why socialism is so unfalsifiable is because itās incredibly easy for socialists to shift the goalposts rapidly to another form of āsocialismā upon critique, so thank you for your definition.
You say āitās just the reduction the private capitalā or this relatively benign form of anti-imperialism, but the post above outlines the USSRās space program or Chinaās economic growth as examples of socialist successes, so it must be to do with the āsocialismā in those economies. Your definition sounds like capitalism to me: you can pay rent to a landlord, have your surplus labour taken, the only condition is that āprivate capitalā is being āreducedā (something like the railways are being nationalised or corporations are being taxed).
On your institutional point, being intergovernmental organisations, I donāt believe IMF and World Bank are āprivate capitalā. Furthermore, the Belt & Road initiative is run by China, which is listed as a socialist country in the post.
On your intervention point, would I prefer US intervention done in the name of anti-communism across the late 20th century wasnāt so brutal and destructive. Does that make me any less of a liberal? I think you can be pro-capitalism and anti-imperialism, in the same way you can be pro-socialism and pro-imperialism (China, Venezuela, USSR). In other words the attributes pro-imperialism and pro-capitalism are independent.
The general thrust of my take here is that most economies are a hybrid of pro- and anti-property systems, so itās hard to disentangle a lot of it. But Iāll have a crack:
Oh, I read these as counter-examples to the theory that capitalism is a superior economic principle; that whatever causes these things could be independent of either. But equally, Chinaās economic growth might be more attributable to their capitalist tendencies than their socialist ones.
Itās all a spectrum, right? No system is entirely ācapitalistā either, in the sense that not all forms of capital are subject to private ownership for profit. So I was looking more at decreasing private capital relative to the status quo, rather than abolishing it entirely. It wouldnāt be beyond the pale to refer to such acts as āsocialistā.
Given that almost every capitalist government raises some of its own capital by borrowing money from private citizens, yes, these organisations partially serve private capital. I canāt speak to the extent, untangling global debt flows seems hard.
I think thatās fair. I was speaking toward the tendency of capitalist systems to exhaust themselves of growth in their places of origin, and then start looking outward. The usual example leftists like to trot out here is the Dutch East India Company (not without reason!). I think you might be able to be capitalist and anti-imperialist, but itās harder work and you might find yourself out-competed by those willing to extract the extra value by doing so.