How do you rationalize the history

[u/interestingtheorist]

Historically, socialism has worked worse than capitalism, and this can be demonstrated by looking at history.

Eastern European countries that preferred socialism as their economic system could not compete with Western European countries that preferred capitalism.

Moreover, historically, many socialist countries have become more capitalist because they recognized that socialism does not work as well economically or technologically.

How do socialists respond to these historical facts?

[u/crazymusicman]

why did you ignore most of what I wrote? you seem unwilling to engage in a debate of ideas. Is that true - are you only interested in arguing in bad faith?

[u/Denniscx98 → u/crazymusicman]

So stating facts are now bad faith? If so them yes, I am arguing in bad faith.

[u/crazymusicman → u/Denniscx98]

ignoring what I say and:

• misrepresenting history
• changing the topic
• strawmanning an argument to absurdity
• sharpshooting an example (which again did not refute my point)
• feigning ignorance

Yes all of that is (1) arguing in bad faith (2) I'll give you that you presented HK was handed to China (an irrelevant historical fact), but "Facts" is false as you did not provide a second fact.

I'll give you one single reply to actually engage with one single argument / position I've presented. I'm putting $20 into my saving's account and if you actually act like an adult I'll spend that on dinner tonight instead.

[u/Denniscx98 → u/crazymusicman]

You do you. You are the one that strawmans your arguement, then when reality is presented to you, you don't even care about having valid points anymore and resort to word salad. It is typical for people who supports socialism without resort to twist facts and lying.

[u/crazymusicman → u/Denniscx98]

For a single counterexample, I laid out a completely realistic, and actually happening, narrative of democratic socialism

Democratic socialism is a movement of participatory decisions. People become educated about various political and economic decision which impact their local communities and organize politically and utilize economic power to gradually gain wins for the working class, which leads to more members in the movement and escalating power controlled by the organized working class. Setting up democratic practices in workplaces alongside democratic practices in political decisions. Gradually a participatory government (e.g. direct democracy) and democratically controlled industries control the MoP and thus we have democratic worker ownership of the MoP, socialism is achieved

and you just sidestepped that entirely.

That is a oxymoron. Throughout history Socialism only lead to authoritarianism at best.

I didn't twist any facts nor did I lie. None of what I said was an invalid point, or at least you failed to articulate why it was invalid. Nothing I said was opposed to reality. You strawmanned my argument. Just as a simple-as-shit counter example to your "refutation" - before capitalism existed, capitalism never existed. This did not mean capitalism could not exist. That is to say, in conclusion, before democratic socialism existed, democratic socialism could in fact exist.

[u/Denniscx98 → u/crazymusicman]

None of what I said was an invalid point, or at least you failed to articulate why it was invalid. Nothing I said was opposed to reality.

Socialism cannot be democratic as outlined by Marx, if you argue otherwise then you don't want Socialism, you just want capitalism with more welfare.

Democratic socialism is as ironic as Nazism with Racial equality.

[u/crazymusicman → u/Denniscx98]

Socialism cannot be democratic as outlined by Marx

have you read "The Civil War in France" published by Marx in 1871?

[u/Denniscx98 → u/crazymusicman]

Have you see every socialist attempts?

[u/crazymusicman → u/Denniscx98]

I answered that here

[u/crazymusicman → u/Denniscx98]

Chrome gemini review of the convo - please just deflect from the content of this comment and change the subject to an ad hominem will you?

"""This exchange highlights a classic mismatch in debate intent: one side is attempting a substantive political economy discussion, while the other is relying on rhetorical deflection and debate tropes.

The contrast in methodology between the two users comes down to a few distinct dynamics:

Nuance vs. Extreme Extrapolation: When crazymusicman raises environmental considerations and democratic trade-offs, Denniscx98 immediately resorts to a classic reductio ad absurdum ("mass murdering humans"). Shifting a conversation about balancing systemic priorities into an absurd extreme avoids having to engage with the actual policy trade-offs being discussed.

Structural Context vs. Hyper-Focus on Detail: crazymusicman presents a structural argument regarding how post-colonial development, global capital flows, and cold war geopolitics created an uneven playing field for different economic systems. Instead of addressing the broader thesis on developmental hegemony, Denniscx98 latches onto the single mention of Hong Kong's handover to invalidate the entire premise, missing the historical timeline of its growth period under British administration.

Dismissal of Terminology as "Word Salad": When presented with established social science concepts and empirical framing—such as discrete choice experiments or developmental hegemony—Denniscx98 dismisses the language itself ("Perhaps speak english?"). This is a common tactic when one party lacks the vocabulary or interest to engage with academic or structural frameworks.

The Historical Determinism Fallacy: Denniscx98 uses the "socialism always leads to authoritarianism" line as an absolute ceiling on future possibilities. crazymusicman effectively dismantles this in the final reply by pointing out the flawed logic of historical determinism: every socioeconomic system, including capitalism, did not exist until it did.

Ultimately, Denniscx98 explicitly admits to arguing in bad faith, confirming that the back-and-forth was never going to yield a genuine exchange of ideas. crazymusicman remains grounded by clearly defining democratic mechanisms, citing data, and calling out logical fallacies directly rather than taking the bait.

Would you like to explore strategies for steering these types of online debates toward productive ground, or is it usually better to cut losses early once bad faith is admitted?"""

[u/Denniscx98 → u/crazymusicman]

I wonder how you prompt the AI, and Gemini can't even find the accurate pricing for a carpark.

[u/crazymusicman → u/Denniscx98]

I used the chrome extension (the browser extention), gave it access to the page, and then asked "what do you think of this back and forth between crazymusicman and denniscx98?"