The First World War

Definition of Capitalism.
China has an enourmous amount of state and private enterprises.
It is neither wholly Capitalist nor wholly Communist, assuming from the definition that the 'community' is the same as the 'state'.
In determining which is more Capitalist, between the US and China, one would have to factor in the size, quantity, and quality of the so-called 'socialist' programs that both countries provide for their populous as well as the amount of government there is an the extent of its control over the country in addition to numerous other factors.

I, for one, believe [no matter what others have said that I believe] that China has a much larger Capitalist base than anybody here gives them credit for and per capita could rival the US or exceed it.
Even if, by some extimates, half of China was employed by the Chinese government, it would still have more people working in the private sector than the US by sheer power of numbers.

Ugh, I can't believe you people called him into this. About China, no less.

Both the US and China are capitalist states. Neither is even remotely socialist. China is a state capitalist nation with a limited market, and as is typical with state capitalist nations, it employs a large amount of socialist rhetoric and claims the socialist ideology is its inspiration.

Capitalism is an absolute quality. Either you are capitalist, or you are not. The same goes for socialism. A state cannot be "mixed", or be more or less capitalist than another state, unless the state you're comparing it to is actually just not capitalist at all.

Communism and capitalism are not proper nouns. They are not to be capitalized unless they come at the beginning of a sentence. Also, "extimates" isn't a word. I assume you mean "estimates," which in this case are actually just statements by Stalin.

Meh.
Nice opinion.
I disagree.
And about the last: Meh.

He knows a lot more about China than most people on the forums.

So your claiming China is in no way whatsoever even a drop of socialist?

No, capitalism is not an absolute quality. There are different levels of capitalism. You can be both a little capitalist and a little socialist. You can have a country with many socialist policies, but that still allows private ownership and private companies. Or you could have a country where everything is privately owned, including roads, hospitals, fire departments, police, the military, government buildings.

First off, it's "you're". The contraction of "you are." You're using the possessive, "your" here, which makes absolutely no sense. And second, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They've got all of the putrid trappings of a dirty red society, but they are not a socialist state.

It absolutely is.

Different types, sure. Different amounts, no. That's impossible.

No you can't.

And what exactly are the socialist policies this country supposedly has in such great quantities?

Yeah, you sure could.

Free food, healthcare, housing, and mass transportation. All that as well as major restrictions on labor, and very high taxes for privately owned companies. More companies would be state owned than privately owned. Its obviously a hypothetical country.

A common typo.

Further evidence to my earlier point that there are more commonly insults coming from the capitalist side than the socialist side. You use terms like this all the time, while Kara and Ler rarely use terms similar to it, and no other socialists on these forums do that I can think of.

No, its not impossible, read my first response.

Yes, you can. Once again, read above.

Also, could you start providing better arguments than things simply like "no" or "its impossible" or "your grammar had a mistake so your argument is invalid"

None of that is socialist policy.

Common mistakes are considerably worse than obscure ones. If you can't spell bourgeois correctly, I might be willing to forgive that. But using "your" when you should have used "you're" isn't a typo, or excusable. It's just ignorance and apathy.

You're just grasping at straws here. Kara was clearly incorrect, and the idea that people are less likely to insult each other because they subscribe to a particular brand of economic theory is preposterous.

I have addressed this issue once before. It was with you, as well. There is no need to go into detail about a topic that's already been closed.

I've never used that as an argument. It's evidence of ignorance or laziness, but it's very rarely relevant to someone's argument.

Kara just called anybody who didnt believe in socialism, brainwashed, stupid, a fool, or apathetic.

Just one question: How the hell is this related to World War 1?
@slydessertfox
@You Rang?
@Imperial1917
@General Mosh

Hey look I tried to get it back on topic at the end of the last page but they completely missed the hint and went right back to talking about commies and cappies. So I just said fuck it and continued arguing.

It's not. But then, what was discussed before this wasn't about WWI either.

Yeah, we were talking about World War 2.

That actually crossed my mind.

But not enough to make you change the topic?

Then what is socialist policy Kali? Or is there no such thing as socialist policy because for the life of me I can't think of what your idea of socialist policy may be. And it is definitely social policy.

No, once again, its a common mistake. Noone stops to think hmmmmm I wonder if I used the incorrect conjunction? Common mistakes are often easier mistakes to make than less common ones. It comes from typing fast and caring about whether or not you're getting your point across.

I never suggested that. I said that on these particular forums, you are far more likely to find a capitalist insulting a commie rather than the other way around.

This topic was not closed. I conceded I did not fit the definition of a socialist. I hold my view that a perfect economic policy is a mix of socialism and capitalism. You continue to hold the view that the definition proves me wrong because each cancels the other out. No. That's like saying if you mix white and black you will get one or the other. Wrong. You will get grey. Well think of yourself as the color black, Kara as the color white, and me as the color grey. In fact, you proving I was not socialist simply reinforced my view of a mix of socialism and capitalism.

No, you haven't used it in an argument. You have used it as an excuse to simply ignore someone's argument by saying something like "I couldn't even understand that" which is untrue because poelpe can uerdntsand an agrmunet as lnog as the frist and lsat lrtets of a wrod are the smae. And other random grammar mistakes are easy to decode. I really don't care how someones grammar is as long as they get their point across.

Socialist policy, very obviously, would be policy that enacts the socialist agenda. Which is to say, policy that abolishes private property and capitalism.

Social policy is a meaningless term.

Yes, and mistakes are distinct from typos. Typos are mechanical errors. What you did wasn't a mechanical error, it was a grammatical one. You made a conscious decision to use the incorrect word because you were confused about the meaning of the word.

Conjunctions and contractions are extremely different. "You're" is a contraction. "And" is a conjunction.

Typos come from typing fast. Doing what you did does not.

Prove your assertion then.

Which, as I explained in that topic, is impossible.

Socialism was literally conceived to destroy capitalism. That's the entire point of socialism. A state can be capitalist, and a state can be socialist. A state cannot be a mix of the two. It's ontologically impossible.

Explain how socialism and capitalism can possibly be mixed.

You're an American. It's gray.

That doesn't make sense. You could not possibly draw that conclusion from anything I said in that thread.

How utterly plebeian.

My post was only a momentary delay I see.

No, not really.
You could have, but I would have been marked as backing out of the debate.

True enough, although it makes my comment look like chopped liver.

Sorry about that.