On Friday, August 31, 2012 2:48:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>  On 8/31/2012 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, 
> Belize, Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is 
> socialist and China is Communist.
> But Sweden isn't socialist - the government doesn't own the major means of 
> production.  Sweden's economy is regulated capitalism plus lots of social 
> services (which conservatives in the U.S. call "socialist").  China has a 
> mixed economy with government owned enterprises and privately owned ones.  
> It is not communist as Marx envisioned, it is only "communist" in that is 
> what the ruling party calls itself and it allows no opposition parties.

 Why isn't it deregulated socialism plus lots of entrepreneurial support? 
My point is that these labels are not especially relevant and that the 
underlying conditions of population and ownership of resources are what 
matter, not the supposed ideology or system of bookkeeping. If you look at 
the skyline of any major city, you can't see any difference between the 
more capitalist, socialist, democratic, theocratic, etc political systems. 
It can work well or terribly in any mode - even monarchy.


> Brent

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to