Ban The Olympics & World cup

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
And I'm sure the rich will all gladly give up their money in the interest of fairness. 🙄

Well in my opinion the rich should have to pay more tax.

Originally posted by Redjoe
Well in my opinion the rich should have to pay more tax.

Social democracies do not reject capitalism. The rich paying more taxes is an example of social democracies embracing capitalism but correcting for its redistribution effects.

Originally posted by Redjoe
Well in my opinion the rich should have to pay more tax.

You won't think like that if you ever become rich!

Originally posted by Nargaguna
You won't think like that if you ever become rich!

You don't know that he isn't already rich.

Originally posted by Redmike
You don't know that he isn't already rich.

I would doubt it since, like you, he is full of envy and spite against that condition.

Originally posted by Nargaguna
I would doubt it since, like you, he is full of envy and spite against that condition.

For example?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I know that they've switched from communism to capitalism (skipping the democracy part). The thing is that the choice was made by the somewhat despotic Chinese government; the Chinese population carries on doing what it's told. They are cheap, cheerful and exploitable. Hooray for the Chinese economy.

Well....technically no they haven't. they're still a socialist state, yes they have gone from the 'production' focus of the Maoist reforms to the 'consumption' focus of the economic reforms . And as the state wishes tthe West to view them in a good light they have loosened their socilaist grip by allowing traditional rituals and beliefs to re-emerge they are still socialist. Economic reforms do not necessarily equate to political ones....

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
Well....technically no they haven't. they're still a socialist state, yes they have gone from the 'production' focus of the Maoist reforms to the 'consumption' focus of the economic reforms . And as the state wishes tthe West to view them in a good light they have loosened their socilaist grip by allowing traditional rituals and beliefs to re-emerge they are still socialist. Economic reforms do not necessarily equate to political ones....

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one. Communism, democratic socialism or anarcho-syndicalism are all socialist but with different political systems.

Originally posted by Palynka
Socialism is an economic system, not a political one. Communism, democratic socialism or anarcho-syndicalism are all socialist but with different political systems.

So if you relace socialist within my post by Communism, democratic socialism or anarcho-syndicalism then you'll understand what I'm saying won't you

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
So if you relace socialist within my post by Communism, democratic socialism or anarcho-syndicalism then you'll understand what I'm saying won't you

Replacing them in your post won't make any sense since we were talking about China. Since you've agreed that they were not socialist economically, they cannot be any of those three regimes neither.

Originally posted by Palynka
Replacing them in your post won't make any sense since we were talking about China. Since you've agreed that they were not socialist economically, they cannot be any of those three regimes neither.

I don't 'really' undersatnd what you're going on about. But the point I'm making is that although China have adopted a 'consumption' focus through their economic reforms they still remain a socialist state...

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
I don't 'really' undersatnd what you're going on about. But the point I'm making is that although China have adopted a 'consumption' focus through their economic reforms they still remain a socialist state...

No, they don't. They can call themselves what they want in their constitution but they have embraced capitalism. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a fallacy intended to maintain ideological legitimacy for the regime.

Originally posted by Palynka
No, they don't. They can call themselves what they want in their constitution but they have embraced capitalism. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a fallacy intended to maintain ideological legitimacy for the regime.

'There are no facts only interpretations' (Nietzsche) and thats your interpretation which within this democratic forum you're allowed to have. Although I understand your point I don't agree with it, yes I'm sure Chinese nationals now have more freedom than say communist Korea, but they are still socialist, with time that may change but for now it hasn't. All that has changed is that the socialist grip has loosened purely for economic reasons, for example to encourage foreign trade the Chinese people are given more freedom in various ways so the West will view China in a better light.

Saying that, if you can validate your point with the relevant data I'm more than happy to listen....

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
And re-appropriate the money to countries in need to help quash plight, poverty and starvation...

Okay. Ronoldo said once that as a boy, his biggest dream was to play in the World Cup. Surely you wouldn't want to take the dreams of all those children away would you?

Originally posted by Paintbucket
Okay. Ronoldo said once that as a boy, his biggest dream was to play in the World Cup. Surely you wouldn't want to take the dreams of all those children away would you?

If people like Ronaldo didn't live in such poverty as a young child I'm sure they'd have better and more useful dreams...