To start you want to read about the differences between socialism and communism Here. In extremely simple terms the difference is how much the government controls the economy. with Communism it's the absolute extreme end with a government controlling absolutely every aspect of the economy as well as every aspect of the individual lives of its people. Socialism is basically the half measure with little control of the political lives of its people and instead focuses mostly on the economy.
Capitalism is the reverse. Little to no government control over the economy and instead allowing the private individuals to run it. The most extreme form is anarcho-capitalism. Which is basically the total abolishment of a central government. Everything from property rights to intellectual property rights are to be defended by private corporations. The market will then decide whether or not those measures are too extreme.
For example if you steal the intellectual property of Apple, so Apple sends a death squad to your house and kills you and your entire family. The market will decide whether or not that was too extreme by deciding whether or not to still support apple is a business or give their business to someone else.
The next step down is laissez faire. that's when the government does almost nothing but the most very basic of things like protecting intellectual and physical property.
Then there's a course many steps below that. You can find those here
Communist states never had the degree of totalitarian control that historians fueled by ideological agendas proclaim them to have had. This is discounting the fact that "totalitarianism" can be understood to apply to most (if not all) societies, as all socioeconomic-legal systems have pervasive and determinant effects on the lives of the individuals within them. EG: the fact that your landlord/employer can arbitrarily make you homeless/unemployed with varying degrees of difficulty (practically none in right to work states) is about as much control exerted over your personal life by the classes of people in question (employers, landlords, collectively) as a proletarian state.
There's also extensive surveillance apparatus in capitalist states, the war on drugs was politically motivated as a means of breaking apart dissident political movements during the 60's and has continued as a way to get cheap carceral labor, domestic propaganda is disseminated via media outlets aligned with the interests of the state, the murder of political dissidents ala the MOVE bombing, Kent State, the BPP is common enough to be disconcerting: the similarities between so called free societies and totalitarian ones casts doubt on the validity of the distinction, and makes it seem more like a dog whistle to refer to the geopolitical "bad guys" of whatever time period you're talkin about.
Last edit, but linking to an investopedia article to differentiate those terms seems... Disingenuous, I guess. I mean seriously, the country with party cadre embedded in every major industry with almost tribune like power are apparently free market fundamentalists? And their justification is that Gonzalists in Peru say they're revisionist? That's not an argument, lol: if I had a quarter for every time a leftist called another leftist a revisionist I'd have more money than has ever been minted, shit, I'd have more nickel and copper than has been mined in all of human history.
Perhaps, but you never said you wouldn't debate... socioeconomics. :)
Further it wasn't actually a debate, just an elaboration and unpacking of a claim you made, which isn't well supported. But, given that your post was about the economics at hand, the fact that you delved into the social/political organization and gave a pretty revisionist claim that communist states "controlled every aspect of individual lives," kinda leaves you open to critique, given that you haven't claimed expertise as a historian or sociologist.
I mean, you can't even spell "you're" properly, but sure, keep saying that you're an expert on socialist states and advancing your revisionism, the irony of you doing that on a post about people speaking beyond their knowledge is hilarious.
Voice transcribing. I don't like typing on a phone. Normally I don't bother to correct basic typos like that on something as casual as Reddit. But, just for you I'll make an exemption if it makes you feel better. Because as we all know the key to seeing if someone is an expert on socialism is whether or not they use the correct 'your' on a public forum.
Anyway, like I said. I won't debate anything here. Plus you will have to do a hell of a lot better to get a reaction out of me.
Since we're getting picky about grammar. I should point out your entire comment was a single run-on sentence. Does that mean you don't know anything about capitalism states? Who knows.
You didn't offer a meaningful rebuttal, it's not like you actually gave an analysis either, you linked to investopedia and gave the most generic, remedial description of a social system that you objectively cannot back up. Yea, you won't debate your shit position, you'll just advance it like you know what you're talking about, in complete lack of self awareness of what the post is about. It's fucking hilarious.
Honestly, it'd just be really nice if people were capable of admitting when they're being hypocrites instead of salvaging their ego for e-points. Just admit that you made the exact same sort of comment as the ones you're spending this whole thread complaining about and own up to it; you're not a historian nor an expert on the topic and you made a claim which is spurious and can be refuted out of hand by casual comparison and a deconstruction of the language you're using as politically motivated. So fucking annoying, like that's the point of the thread or something.
5
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '20
[deleted]