On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 02:53:24 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> Europe's greatest examples of Socialism are most of western Europe
>> for the later half of the twentieth century.
>
>Where in western Europe? Which present-day European nations don't
>have stock markets?

That's not an indication of Socialism.

Socialism is treating Healthcare, shelter, food, and childcare (among
other things) as rights, rather than privileges. All of which can be
done along side Capitalism, which is what having a stock market might
be an indication of.

BTW has the Hong Kong stock exchange shut down yet? Or are you saying
China is (other than de facto) Capitalist?
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>BTW has the Hong Kong stock exchange shut down yet? Or are you saying
>China is (other than de facto) Capitalist?

No, but it's likely that the Hong Kong exchange goes the same way the
Shanghai exchange is in terms of internal controls and restrictions on
foreign investors.

It's capitalist... but it sure isn't laissez-faire capitalism. It's socialist,
but it sure isn't traditional marxist socialism. These things don't fall
into nice easy boxes, which is what makes the world interesting.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 2:53:40 PM UTC-5, merri...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 02:53:24 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> >Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Europe's greatest examples of Socialism are most of western Europe
> >> for the later half of the twentieth century.
> >
> >Where in western Europe? Which present-day European nations don't
> >have stock markets?
> That's not an indication of Socialism.
>
> Socialism is treating Healthcare, shelter, food, and childcare (among
> other things) as rights, rather than privileges.

I'd tag that as a Third Way system, usually associated with a
social democratic and/or labo(u)r party.

> All of which can be done along side Capitalism,

Just not laissez faire capitalism.
[A word invented by critics of a market economy]

> which is what having a stock market might
> be an indication of.
>

For values of "capitalism" that extend to the crony kind as
well as other versions with a heavy state foot putting the
breaks on the "invisible hand."

> BTW has the Hong Kong stock exchange shut down yet? Or are you saying
> China is (other than de facto) Capitalist?

Weird combo of crony capitalism and one-party "state socialism" -
or "state capitalism."

[quote]

The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels
for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another
which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of
Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is “State Capitalism.” It is not commonly realized that
this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and
State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism
diverge only in non-essentials from the “classic” ideal of egalitarian Socialism.

[/quote] - Ludwig von Mises in
_Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis_
Preface to the second German edition.

https://www.econlib.org/book-chapters/chapter-preface2/

I've always found two differences between Fascism/Nazism
and Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism etc.

As previously mentioned, the early Marxists cared about the revolutionary
government owning the means of production, on behalf of the proletariat,
while the Nazis/Fascists were OK with the old owners' name being
on the deed as long as they had control and could rake off whatever
benefits that would normally accrue to ownership.

The other is that Marxists demonized owners of capital, whether the
old nobility and monarchs and, once they had finished with supplanting
the old feudal regimes, the bourgeoise. Meanwhile, the N/Fs took aim at
ethnic groups other than the nationality they belonged to.

TL;DR: Switch class to race and ownership to control and there's
little to distinguish the two ideologies.
Note that Mussolini was an International Socialist before
he agitated for war:

[quote]

......he changed his mind about intervention. Swayed by Karl Marx’s aphorism
that social revolution usually follows war and persuaded that "the defeat of
France would be a deathblow to liberty in Europe," he began writing articles
and making speeches as violently in favour of war as those in which he previously
had condemned it. He resigned from _Avanti!_ and was expelled from the Socialist
Party. Financed by the French government and Italian industrialists, both of whom
favoured war against Austria, he assumed the editorship of _Il Popolo d’Italia_
("The People of Italy"), in which he unequivocally stated his new philosophy:
"From today onward we are all Italians and nothing but Italians. Now that steel has
met steel, one single cry comes from our hearts—Viva l’Italia! [Long live Italy!]"
It was the birth cry of fascism. Mussolini went to fight in the war.

[/quote] - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benito-Mussolini
He found what he thought was a stronger horse for his ambition.

One flavor of totalitarian statism is as bad as another. One might dislike
the Commies more because their regimes have lasted longer. Are
there accurate stats for "megadeaths per year-in-power?"

--
Kevin R