I didn’t say it was a defining characteristic of it. Just that if it works as it should, anyone has a chance at success.
What you did was exactly my point. You tried to compare socialism at its best against capitalism at it worst. If that fair, then let’s compare Singapore today vs. Bulgaria in 1989.
The difference here is I’m not pulling shit out of my ass and trying to make believe that it’s a point.
Capitalism at its best essentially allows anyone a shot at success. This isn’t an arguable point. It’s what defines capitalism if it were to work as designed.
It’s not working as designed.
Unchecked socialism would do the exact same thing. Don’t believe me? Ask Bulgaria.
Thank you for proving another point. That no matter what- socialism will always win from a socialist’s perspective- even if they need to redefine the subject.
If capitalism works perfectly, by design- anyone has a fair shot. This is the absolute truth of it even if you don’t like it.
The problem is, it’s not working perfectly. And if socialism was adapted, I’d all but guarantee it would be bastardized just as bad if not worse.
Yeah, and if you ask a typical “socialist” to compare the two and you’ll always get a best-case scenario of socialism and a worst-case scenario of capitalism.
Socialists will compare socialism at its best against capitalism at its worst- and vice-versa.
Where no one on any side of anny argument is willing to admit that any form of government that is left to run unchecked, will always exploit the people.
Oh! My apologies! I have gotten accustomed to not looking at usernames for some reason.