Untitled

Do you honestly think the success rate of socialist nations is anywhere near that of capitalist ones?

Do you consider China or Bangladesh successful, with their absence of workers' rights and rampant corruption? How about India? Vietnam?

Capitalism is the backbone of every progressive superpower that has ever existed. Socialism has produced dozens of failed states and only ever finds success in small and irrelevant nations. Their records are nowhere near the same.

kek

The only way capitalism can succeed is with elements of socialism to balance it. It isn't socialism that leads nations to failure, but rather the concentration of absolute power in the hands of a few. If you had pure free-market capitalism, with nothing to limit the power of oligarchs, the end result would be the same. There have never been any pure free-market/capitalist economies, and for good reason.

that's a difficult thing to quantify. i doubt we'd agree on a definition.
China is amazingly successful by the major capitalist criteria: gdp, growth, market share and employment. On corruption, the usa is classed 17th in the world, equal with Barbados. On workers' rights, left leaning countries such as Sweden are well ahead of Hong Kong or Australia, while ranking 7th on the corruption index.
that's an oxymoron, isn't it? name one such nation. All superpowers since the muslim expansion have been regressive and colonialist.

...

...