> It's interesting then that all the countries in the world with the highest median income are all capitalist countries.

That's a very valid argument until you realise there are only 4 socialist countries in the world. One of which is sanctioned to oblivion for making nukes.

A better example of why pure socialism sucks is eastern european countries who were worse off when they were under ussr occupation due to all the looting and stealing and are now faring much better.

"Socialism shaped the principal economic and social policies of the Indian government but mostly followed Dirigisme after independence until the early 1990s, when India moved towards a more market-based economy." - Socialism in India Wiki page

> corporate society (employees own the company rather than management)

So then you're not socialist...? I guess a more accurate statement is a mixed economy since you have elements from both socialism and capitalism

> Also didn’t America banned a lot of unions from being formed?

Yep, they lie that the union would make their dalaries go down and people somehow fall for it even tho their primary purpose is literally to make them go up. They also double the work on those who threaten to start unions and then fire them for not being able to do their job.

> And your job under capitalism is to value your work properly by negotiating or by having someone negotiate for you.

And when everyone wants to skim you by paying you almost nothing then there is no negotiating. You work or you starve. Why do you think there's a minimal wage and other socialist laws which ensure worker rights? Also hiw would someone negotiate for me when right wing parties constantly try to dismantle unions and people still vote for them.

> With shitalism you can’t do that. Oh let me remind you, your precious unions don’t exist in shitalism.

So doesn't that mean that if a socialist country then voted to have unions it would simply be better than capitalism? :)

I'm not even for socialism, I think that a system that has free market but also worker rights (which apperantly you do not realise is anti-capitalist by nature) is simply better than both but somehow you claim the doctors would be magically better simply from it being a capitalist system. Bruh they ARE in a capitalist system. Which means there are two options, first being the doctors ask patients massive bills cause that's what they think their work is worth and the patient choosing between paying it or dying (like in the US), second there being restrictions where the patient can actually you know - afford his live saving treatments? Jeez I wonder which is better.

It's not like the doctors will be paid minimal wage (which by itself is meant to be livable off of) so you can't claim their work won't be appreciated.

Weird I remember capitalism trying to pay you as little as possible and valuing your work the least while the top in the company sweep all the money.

> If you believe a claim is synonymous with an example you should probably go check out the definitions.

"a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule." - ala google

Which perfectly matches how understood it, ie general. If you believe an example is synonymous with evidence you should probably go check out the definitions.

To prove him wrong you could at any time find evidence to counter him.

> How? Another government could just as easily change the constitution back if they wanted to.

Except it's a super majority vote which they either have to get or collaborate with other parties which us much harder than the simple majority they needed before hand. I'm confident getting 65% of people to afree on something is harder than 50%.

> All you ended up doing was take a cheap, fallacious jab. Come on mate, don't even try this now.

That wasn't a jab but pointing out your hypocrisy in lecturing in me doing what you did even tho the reason I did it was to show you why you shouldn't do it.

> See? What's this? Another cheap jab. You didn't even try to have a conversation here, you offered no real argument or case of your own, just a trite accusation of 'you did x' instead of offering much of meaning. And you expected not to be chastised for it? What DID you expect when you wrote that reply? Or was it mere a thought of "haha I sure got him!"?

I literally very verbosely explained to you the difference between both your responses in order to argument my initial take. How else do you expect me to defend my stance of disagreeing with you on your comparison between you two. That's literally whete this entite conversation started from.

> "Giving examples"? I see a bunch of claims made with nothing behind them.

I said giving examples, not providing sources. You didn't need to explain to me what goving an example is.

You claimed it would provide no difference because you didn't see one even tho clearly at minimum it would make it harder for future governments to remove it which is already a massive accomplishment.

That is completely different from what the person that responded to you did. They had the choice to either verify or not do so. They then gave concrete examples. You had the same choice yet you choose to ignore their examples and make snarky remarks while accusing then of doing the same as you even tho they clearly tried to look for what people actually dealing with the law have to say about this and inform others while you choose to do the opposite.

> It's rather galling to see someone like you just enter a conversation and start spewing bile

That's what a forum is. A place where multiple people exchange thoughts. Not to mnetion it was you who had responded to them with bile in response to their snarkines, yet you somehow try to pin it in me, laughable.

> instead of treating it with a bit of respect, as though the other person being wrong somehow is something to ridicule rather than, you know, talk about?

Respect? You did not show an ounce of respect in the comment I responded to which is exactly what prompted me to reply in the first place.

How ironic that you choose to lecture me about "you know, talk about" things yet like I had stated the reason I wrote my remarks were because you choose to do just the opposite and not acknowledge their reply to you.

And talking about being wrong is stil talking about it. Had you acknowledged it instead of trying to deflect then I would not need to bring up the differences in your replies.

> What on earth is with your attitude?

Simply responding to you to the direction you decided to take the conversation. What's wrong with your attitude? Instead of holding a construcrive conversation you immediately started deflecting and accing of everyonr of what you're doing and then have the gall to accuse everyone else of it.

So giving examples is the same as not doing so?