Objection

There are definitely similarities, but China has its own fascinating history there, with a lot of traditional beliefs resurfacing as weird, sanctioned versions of themselves after the cultural revolution had mostly suppressed them.

I think you've got it backwards. One of the lesser known, positive parts of the Cultural Revolution (which was primarily a horrible clusterfuck) was the Barefoot Doctors program, in which medical students were fast-tracked in education and sent out to the rural regions of China, which had never before had access to modern medicine. It was a very basic level of care, but it increased the number of doctors per person tenfold in the span of five years, and access to vaccines had a significant impact, increasing life-expectancy and reducing child mortality. However, because medical supplies in those regions were limited (and the scale of the program), the doctors were instructed to supplement care with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). This allowed the program to be rolled out more quickly, and the partial reliance on TCM may have helped with public acceptance (since it was what they already believed in), but it had an unfortunate side effect that it legitimized TCM.

This program was phased out in the 80's with China's broader economic shift, towards privatization, while also moving away from TCM. The new policies made care less accessible and focused more on curing serious ailments rather than preventative care. China has made some efforts to address these issues, though I'm not well informed enough about their current system to weigh in.

A lot of the modern popularity of TCM likely comes from the time of the Barefoot Doctors program, because people remember their quality of life improving during that time and then declining later when the focus was shifted away from TCM, incorrectly attributing it to TCM's effectiveness rather than the accessibility of care and focus on prevention. Which is to say, many of the people who believe in TCM may actually be nostalgic for the healthcare system implemented during the Cultural Revolution.

I hate the term. I think what you described is a perfectly valid way to approach conversations, but be prepared to have the term thrown at you and to be accused of bad faith, because a decent part of the internet decided it was because a webcomic said so.

Whenever I've tried to do this I get accused of "sealioning"

Usually you don't go, "You forgot to respond to this" if you don't actually have anything there you want the other person to respond to. If you do not know how to have a conversation with another person go learn how to do that and get back to me.

What's there to address? You're just asserting what you personally like.

The more the capitalists are able to gain power (through making a bunch of money), the more they'll push the government to cut those social services and to remove regulations. The system you describe is viable only to the extent that the capitalists can be kept in check.

Many existing socialist countries (Vietnam, China, etc) have implemented a market economy, as it's necessary to participate in the global economy, and it can be useful for economic development, at least to a point.

I'm not really sure what you want me to answer here.

Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.

The confusion comes from the fact that the word capitalism has two meanings. The original meaning, which the other person and myself are using, has nothing to do with free markets:

1854, "condition of having capital;" from capital (n.1) + -ism. The meaning "political/economic system which encourages capitalists" is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists. The meaning "concentration of capital in the hands of a few; the power or influence of large capital" is from 1877.

It was only later, in reaction to socialism, that capitalism began to take on this meaning you're using, where it's supposedly disconnected from class interests and is just about some abstract economic principle. But using the second definition, it's impossible to talk about capitalism in practice because, as I said, such a system has never existed and will never exist.

Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.

Huh? Economic systems where the interests of capitalists are prioritized are best for the capitalists, economic systems where the interests of workers are prioritized are the best for workers. Also, aren't you declaring a clear winner when you say you can, "always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved?"

They're talking about capitalism in practice. In practice, economic policy is shaped less by ideology and more by they relative power of economic classes. When the rich have power, they get policies that favor themselves enacted, and vice versa. It's only in theory that capitalism is about "free markets," in practice, the rich support free markets if they alternative is something that's more harmful to themselves (like taxes and nationalization) and oppose them when the alternative is beneficial to themselves (subsidies).

"Free market capitalism" is a purely theoretical idea that has never existed, and will never exist, because someone's always going to have enough power to get the government to intervene in the economy to promote their own interests. Generally, left-wing people talking about capitalism mean capitalism in practice, not the theoretical idea.

Yeah, the way we can show all minorities that we're in this together, that we'll stand by each other even when it's unpopular and inconvenient, to stop the state from splitting off groups and trampling them underfoot... is to split off Palestinians and support candidates who want to trample them underfoot because standing up for them is too inconvenient.

Historically, you're completely wrong.

1. Hitler came to power with the support of capitalists (here meaning "people who own substantial capital" rather than "ideological supporters of capitalism"). They saw him as a way to maintain order against socialism and to break the power of unions. A similar story happened in Italy, and in other fascist countries.

2. Many capitalists did in fact benefit from fascism. There's some confusion about fascist economic policies, but you should know that the term "privatization" was first coined to describe the economic policy of Nazi Germany. When they nationalized companies, it was because they were minority owned, and often they were redistributed upwards to the capitalists.

3. Labor rights suffered tremendously under fascism, with labor organizations exterminated, allowing capitalists to impose much worse conditions, lower pay, and longer hours on the workers, as well as using prisoners for slave labor. Any attempt to challenge these conditions would be considered treasonous, undermining the war effort.

4. Even when their countries were defeated militarily, many capitalists got off scot-free. For example, the pharmaceutical company Bayer (which merged with Monsanto in 2016) was once a part of IG Farben, which manufactured Zyklon B for the gas chambers. After the war, Bayer rehired Nazis to high level positions, including for example Fritz ter Meer, who had been on IG Farben's board of directors and became chairman of Bayer, despite being a convicted Nazi war criminal.

Classic XCOM is really fun imo, but it does suffer from some quality of life issues. It's possible to fix some of that with mods though and imo it still holds up. I've definitely put more time into the reboot of the series, but the original has a grittier feel, a bit more "open world," where you're gonna miss UFOs and you're gonna have to cut and run sometimes, and there's also a lot of exploits and tricks you have to figure out on your own (intended or otherwise).

Xenonauts is a more direct remake and it's good, more balanced and polished, but when I play it sometimes I just say, "I'd rather be playing old school XCOM." Hard to put my finger on it, and it might just be that I already know the tricks for the original, or that the jankyness makes it fun. Xenonauts does hold up on it's own but it's hard not to compare the two.

Generally games have gotten better but I'd say there's a handful that have withstood the test of time (especially with basic UI improvements).

No "only" but primarily. Domestic billionaires are the primary enemy, they're the ones who directly benefit from making things like rent and healthcare more expensive, they're the ones who benefit from keeping unions weak and disorganized, they're the ones who benefit from mass surveillance and the police state. Foreign billionaires might benefit from doing those things in their own countries, but for the most part we have more to fear from our own rich people than from other countries' rich people.

Whataboutism.