We’ll get capitalism right, just give us 1 more spin of the roulette

Welfare capitalism was better than the other ones.
- Listen man I know I'm edging pretty close to "no true Scotsman," but hear me out... it's not that it wasn't "true socialism," but whether something is socialist economically isn't necessarily tied to authoritarianism. Like, fuck tankies, but also I do think that combining market economics and truly representative democracy with proportional representation and freedom of speech and association with socialist ownership structures (as in the abolition of corporate governance from any input from, frankly, absentee "owners") is the move. Socialism doesn't have to be authoritarian, nor does it have to be against market economics. Ya know?
  
  I mean state capitalism is by definition not communism. This isn't a no true Scotsman they're just two different things.
- Because it's half way to socialism?
  
  It's the most left of the right-wing scope that is pro-capitalism, but doesn't address the underlying contradiction and will inevitably backslide to the right. It'll take longer, but will eventually side with fascism as capitalism historically does
  
  It is already socialism by definition. It just isn't an eastern dictatorship.

We're now trying pump and dump capitalism

Social welfare capitalism is a good mix but over time the social aspect got burried
- Social welfare capitalism is good in theory. But social welfare is in direct opposition to capitalism, and there is no way to actually contain the corrupting power of capitalism. The social aspect will always get buried.
  
  It wont get burried if its enshrined and untouchable to make it worse

But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism... while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn't do it well.
- I swear people think it’s somehow an accident that Stalin and Mao were evil dictators and if only they weren’t we’d have true socialism.
  I don't know about Mao, but while Stalin being an evil dictator wasn't an accident, Lenin being an evil dictator was. The Russian revolution wasn't just the Bolsheviks; there were many different groups of which the Bolsheviks simply happened to come out on top because of a ton of coincidences and bad decisions by everyone else.
  And no other Marxist groups can get power enough to actually implement their ideas. QED socialism fails.
  The Ukrainians did it until they were invaded by the Soviets, and Rojava's experiment seems to be mostly successful.
  
  Socialism without an underlying set of morals beyond socialism is doomed to fail. It invites end-justifies-means to implement socialism, which taints it beyond repair.
  
  Agree, but socialism doesn't have to be Marxist. Like, Rojava is pretty rad and that's, if anything, just the most modern iteration of libertarian socialism.
- There's also been quite a few smaller socialist and anarchist societies that have existed under similar external influences. Almost like capitalism is tied up with ideological warmongering or something.
  
  I feel like "socialism and anarchsim always fail or lose to capitalists" isn't the flex you think it is.
- But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism… while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn’t do it well.
  And while - which I, personally, think is the biggest reason - starting from pre-capitalist economies, thus materially having to do what capitalism did (rapid industrialisation, disenfranchisement of peasantry, accumulation of capital), and ultimately following what Marxism would have guessed: Their ideology forming around their material reality of having to accumulate capital from labour while trading on the world market. So it basically became its own kind of welfare state/social democratic capitalism, with a bit of "but communism will arrive eventually, we promise!"
  Once that material dynamic is entrenched, no amount of ideological purity can simply correct it from the top, you can't change material society by implementing an ideal onto a reality. It has to develop materially and dialectically, through the process of the old system failing (in unbearable ways), necessitating revolutionary changes.
- Ones doing quite well, hence why countries are abandoning the US as a trade partner and going for it instead. Dengism is the solution to the failed ideal that you can take an agrarian preindustrial society straight to communism. And given all essential sectors are worker owned, it seems to be working.

What’s that Churchill said about being the worst thing except for everything else that’s been tried?
- Churchill said that about democracy, interesting you interchange the two.
- Something that's incorrect
- Churchill was a genocidal war criminal on par with Hitler, he's not someone one should ever quote: unless you're just okay with Indians not being people.
  
  ad hominem

Don't look at what came before mercantile capitalism.

Just look at life expectancies. Countries with social capitalism do the best and not by a little. By arguing everyone is the same, it's really supporting the worst.

Let's go gambling!