You just said and gave no concrete examples. I gave the justification of public utilities and eminent domain issues that facilitate. What you could have used is public funding of stadiums. ha ha
As a review of the thread would prove, I gave several concrete examples. Your “refutation” of my contention that capitalism requires theft to be workable was that the thefts I detailed were necessary for the viability of capitalism.
The proof is in the counter examples.
China had to become more capitalist to remain nominatively communist.
No. The capitalist-minded political heirs of Mao finally succeeded after decades of trying in imposing historic defeats on the working class and overturning China’s socialist revolution.
Venezuela was more successful until Chavez showed up and pissed it all away.
Unless you count the mass starvation and homelessness. Anyway, Chavez was a leftist but not a socialist.
"Rich as an Argentine," until leftist policies deconstruct what well regulated capitalism built.
Argentina fell behind in the capitalist rat race under the mostly conservative governments of the late 1800s, mostly due to Chilean and American competition and not to domestic policy. “Rich as an Argentine” is not something anyone ever said.
And of course the U.S. since before Lincoln. Just ask Alexis de Tocqueville.
When capitalism was a progressive alternative to feudalism, and the most left-wing viable alternative anywhere in the world, it outdid the modes of production associated with more reactionary alternatives, just as when socialism came on the scene it began to outdo capitalism.
Communists and Nazis promised a welfare state for the workers
Not true. The welfare state is a feature of capitalism, which the Nazis inherited and maintained, while the Communists replaces it with meaningful, rewarding work for the masses.
they both nationalized industries
Absolutely untrue. The Nazis engaged in wholesale privatization; in fact, the term “privatization” was invented by an admiring observer to describe the centerpiece of the Nazis’ economic program.
and they both exerted command over the economy
As does any modern government, of necessity. There is nothing distinctive abo it their doing so as well.
Those are the elements of socialism of commune prerogatives over the individual's prerogative.
You mean like exercising eminent domain to build industries at the expense of every individual not a stockholder in those industries? Communists protect the interests of a majority of individuals at the expense of a minority who are kept from exercising the privilege of exploiting them; capitalists protect the interests of a minority of individuals by sacrificing the interests of everyone else to them. Anyway, as I said the welfare state is unique to capitalist society, nationalization (a necessary but not a sufficient condition for socialism) was antithetical to the Nazi program, and the command economy is a universal feature of the modern era without which capitalism as we know it could function no more than socialism.
Communist leftist evil = Nazi leftist evil
The Nazis were right-wing by their own self-designation, according to all their admirers past and present including the Conservative party that joined Hitler’s coalition government, according to their seating in the Reichstag, and according to their policies.
The only economic success Communism (and Nazism for that matter) offers is to that of its elites. The workers fry and die for both brands of socialism.
Interesting that your criticism of communism is that it works like capitalism. Meanwhile the improvement in the standard of living in every workers’ state and the masses’ determined fight to defend socialism against enemies foreign and domestic says otherwise.