traptunderice wroteAs if dictators really give a fuck as to how they run their economy and it is as if dictators don't exist in capitalist nations, i.e. China, if anything you could point to the masses as idiots for wanting a socialist nation and appointing a dictator who claims he is for the people, as Chavez has done and honestly is doing according to my opinion, but once a dictator is in place the party name is just a facade if that is how they want to do it. The point of a dictator is that the people have no input which really isn't socialist and obv prevents any critique of unjust treatment if and when it does develop. It's one thing to be critical of Marxism, do it on a theoretical or argumentative foundation but point to a man who took over in the face of religious extremism and economic collapse and actually did improve things but not by improving the conditions of the working class but by allowing foreign investment to usurp local economies and you are not even making an argument. You're no better than Glenn Beck shouting "commie" at anything he doesn't assent to. By pointing to examples in the world of how what you call "socialism" doesn't pan out, you really aren't saying anything because in no way you can prove that these people are socialists. Point to how they have actual socialist programs which have failed; I would welcome it. Then I'll point you to all the capitalist regimes which have failed in terms of inexcusable levels of repression and poverty and we'll see how they aren't all that different when people are corrupt as fuck but at least socialism seeks for the better of everyone when it gets derailed while capitalism gets derailed, people get fucked and it's par for the course; it was the goal all along.
I'd argue that quantitatively more capitalist nations have had repression and poverty, but communist nations have a far worse track record of failing to live up to their lofty founding principles. But we've been through this many times before and you're still glorifying marxism and bashing capitalism while I'm just saying the former hasn't turned out for the better (in most cases), and the latter is the least undesirable system (again in most cases). You may think me blunt and crass in the things I say here, even liken me to Glenn Beck, but when it comes to some of your judgments you are every bit as blinkered as many of the right-wing nutjobs I occasionally come into contact with. But we have digressed.
You're riposting the issue of Ben Ali in the Internationale as a dictator by calling him and his policy 'not socialist'. What are you saying then, that the Internationale have for fourty years been oblivious to the fact that it had a dictator among its members - let alone questioning his policies? Or would you say the Internationale is less conscientious in putting its marxist doctrine into practice than you are?
Also, China capitalist? Uh-huh.