Hacker News Reader

Comment by notdrunkatall | Hacker News Reader

It baffles me that some people still support socialism.

I'm baffled by the nuanced analysis of the pitfalls of socialism you've presented.

You're pretty easily baffled.

Well, now you claim that NK is actually socialist. I dont really think you can find a normal definition of socialism that fits north korea, any more than its a democratic nation. It claims to be both (The full name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea) but I don't think you can claim its anything other than a autocratic dictatorship.

NK isn't actually socialist just as azure isn't actually blue and the USA isn't actually capitalist.

There are no "actually socialist" nations because socialism "doesn't work" in reality. In reality, socialism's endgame is North Korea.

Well I would argue that there are several countries more socialist than NK (for example Denmark where I come from).

Socialism will properly not work in its pure form, but then again pure capitalism without any restraints would very likely evolve into a nasty place (for example if there was no anti thrust laws there is a big risk that the free market would cease to exist).

Denmark and all other industrialized nations on this planet are capitalist. They may have some socialist leanings such as providing myriad welfare services, but their governments allow private entities to own property and to control the means of production, therefore they are capitalist.

A country is not either capitalist or socialist, its a matter of degrees. Some parts can be capitalist some parts can be socialist. Some countries go more to one end of the spectrum than others.

You can have private ownership of the means of production but that don't automatically give capitalism, capitalism also requires a market economy. You can have private ownership of the mean of production without having capitalism.

If you take the definition of market economy from wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy)

>Capitalism generally refers to economic system where the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for a profit, structured on the process of capital accumulation. In general, investments, distribution, income, and prices are determined by markets.<

What if distribution, income and prices are largely determined by the state but investments are not?

Denmark allows private entities to own property, so it's capitalist. Denmark's largest oil company is state-owned, so it's socialist [0]. Or, maybe more nuance is required.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DONG_Energy

Denmark, like most of the rest of Scandinavia, has a mixed economy. A large portion of the economy is privately owned, but a large portion is also publicly owned. It is neither purely capitalist, nor purely socialist.

NK isn't Socialism

What ever the system they have, it has a lot in common with Socialism. It sure is not free market capitalism.

What does the NK system have in common with, say, Germany's?

um you might want to do a bit of research from sources other than fox news it is possible have both a capitalist free market and a socialist government as many European countries prove.

I did not claim opposite. NK does not have a free market nor a liberal government, period. Dont know about the exact category of their government but their economical system seems like text book Socialism to me. Besides, IMHO Only rich countries can afford Socialist governments, otherwise it ends up in misery.

May I ask your age?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com